Richardson v. State
111 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 1715453, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6493
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Richardson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 36 So. 3d 114 →
Opinion
Because petitioner has failed to show that he has brought the pending motion to the attention to the trial court or made an express and distinct demand for performance, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Thomas v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 74 So.3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Richardson v. State, 111 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 1715453, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6493 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
111 So. 3d 303 (Richardson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Al-Hakim v. State
783 So. 2d 293 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Thomas v. State, Department of Revenue
74 So. 3d 145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)