Robert Sandonato v. Jose Guzman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robert Sandonato v. Jose Guzman

189 So. 3d 265, 2016 WL 1367008, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5295, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 879

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 2016

Docket4D15-3191

StatusPublished

This text of 189 So. 3d 265 (Robert Sandonato v. Jose Guzman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Sandonato v. Jose Guzman, 189 So. 3d 265, 2016 WL 1367008, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5295, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 879 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate a permanent injunction allegedly entered in 1998. Appellant has not shown any reversible error in the court’s order, and appellant has attempted to raise matters for the first time on appeal that he did not present below.

On appeal, appellant alleges that he was advised by the circuit court clerk that the file for this 1998 case has been destroyed, yet he asserts that his prison classification officer has informed him that an injunction in this case impacts his eligibility for certain programs in prison. The circuit court’s online docket for this case reflects that a “temporary injunction” was entered in April 1998. Appellant’s motions to vacate or dissolve an injunction in the underlying case number may in fact be moot.

Appellant should pursue administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections, and if necessary, obtain clarification from the circuit court as to whether any injunction order remains in force in this case.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate a permanent injunction allegedly entered in 1998. Appellant has not shown any reversible error in the court’s order, and appellant has attempted to raise matters for the first time on appeal that he did not present below.

On appeal, appellant alleges that he was advised by the circuit court clerk that the file for this 1998 case has been destroyed, yet he asserts that his prison classification officer has informed him that an injunction in this case impacts his eligibility for certain programs in prison. The circuit court’s online docket for this case reflects that a “temporary injunction” was entered in April 1998. Appellant’s motions to vacate or dissolve an injunction in the underlying case number may in fact be moot.

Appellant should pursue administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections, and if necessary, obtain clarification from the circuit court as to whether any injunction order remains in force in this case.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 3d 265, 2016 WL 1367008, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5295, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-sandonato-v-jose-guzman-fladistctapp-2016.