Scott Clapp v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott Clapp v. State

160 So. 3d 107, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 2015 WL 1213908

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2015

Docket4D14-3886

StatusPublished

This text of 160 So. 3d 107 (Scott Clapp v. State) 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

Scott Clapp v. State, 160 So. 3d 107, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 2015 WL 1213908 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion, which the court treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. During the course of the proceedings below, the state withdrew the affidavits charging appellant with a violation of probation (VOP) in the two lower tribunal case numbers in question. Appellant’s argument concerns the propriety of a detainer that has been lodged against him based on warrants issued on the now withdrawn VOP affidavits. Our affir-mance is without prejudice for appellant to request that the arrest warrants be vacated and, if necessary, to pursue mandamus relief to compel the sheriff to remove the detainer. See generally Moore v. State, 137 So.3d 611, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Perkins v. State, 766 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (explaining that a mandamus action filed in the circuit court with jurisdiction over the party improperly lodging the detainer is the proper remedy *108 where the defendant alleged that he is entitled to removal of the detainer).

Affirmed.

GROSS, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, 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 rule 3.850 motion, which the court treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. During the course of the proceedings below, the state withdrew the affidavits charging appellant with a violation of probation (VOP) in the two lower tribunal case numbers in question. Appellant’s argument concerns the propriety of a detainer that has been lodged against him based on warrants issued on the now withdrawn VOP affidavits. Our affir-mance is without prejudice for appellant to request that the arrest warrants be vacated and, if necessary, to pursue mandamus relief to compel the sheriff to remove the detainer. See generally Moore v. State, 137 So.3d 611, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Perkins v. State, 766 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (explaining that a mandamus action filed in the circuit court with jurisdiction over the party improperly lodging the detainer is the proper remedy *108 where the defendant alleged that he is entitled to removal of the detainer).

Affirmed.

GROSS, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 So. 3d 107, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 2015 WL 1213908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-clapp-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack