Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Woodbury v. Henning

Woodbury v. Henning

596 So. 2d 798, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4136, 1992 WL 69031
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 8, 1992
DocketNo. 92-0270
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 596 So. 2d 798 (Woodbury v. Henning) 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
Woodbury v. Henning, 596 So. 2d 798, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4136, 1992 WL 69031 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for belated rehearing of the trial court’s order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion for correction of sentence.

The trial court has an obligation to enter a ruling on the motion for rehearing even though the motion is evidently untimely. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to rule on the motion. If it is untimely, it should be stricken by the court.

DOWNEY, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HENRY MCCONE vs PITNEY BOWES, INC. AND EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Taylor v. Metropolitan Dade County
596 So. 2d 798 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
596 So. 2d 798, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4136, 1992 WL 69031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodbury-v-henning-fladistctapp-1992.