Shirley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shirley v. State

728 So. 2d 822, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3393, 1999 WL 152531

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3014

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 822 (Shirley 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

Shirley v. State, 728 So. 2d 822, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3393, 1999 WL 152531 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frank Shirley petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He shows that he filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Leon County in February 1997. Now, two years later, he awaits a ruling. The Attorney General has responded to this petition on behalf of the State of Florida and asks that the writ not issue because a ruling is expected shortly. We find that any further delay is unreasonable absent a showing that the particular motion before the circuit court is of such a nature that the delay in disposing of it is justified. Petitioner is entitled to a ruling on his motion within a reasonable time. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the circuit judge assigned to petitioner’s motion to dispose of it within 20 days.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frank Shirley petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He shows that he filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Leon County in February 1997. Now, two years later, he awaits a ruling. The Attorney General has responded to this petition on behalf of the State of Florida and asks that the writ not issue because a ruling is expected shortly. We find that any further delay is unreasonable absent a showing that the particular motion before the circuit court is of such a nature that the delay in disposing of it is justified. Petitioner is entitled to a ruling on his motion within a reasonable time. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the circuit judge assigned to petitioner’s motion to dispose of it within 20 days.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 822, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3393, 1999 WL 152531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack