JANET RENO, AS STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE PAUL BAKER, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State sought mandamus relief to compel a trial judge to enforce this court's reinstatement of original sentences after the judge had improperly granted a stay of execution pending federal habeas corpus review. The court held that a trial judge must obey appellate mandates unless properly stayed, and that a federal habeas corpus petition does not justify a stay of a state court mandate.
A trial judge has no alternative but to obey a mandate of a higher court unless it is appropriately stayed. A stay of mandate may be granted if further appellate review is sought in the United States Supreme Court, but not upon an application for habeas corpus filed as an original proceeding in federal court. The writ of mandamus will lie to compel enforcement of the appellate mandate.
[1] A trial court must obey a mandate of a higher court unless it is appropriately stayed.
[2] A writ of mandamus will lie to prevent the derogation of an appellate court's authority.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial judge has no alternative but to obey a mandate of a higher court, unless it is appropriately stayed.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts must enforce appellate mandates absent proper stay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo defendants were convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to three years. Their convictions were affirmed on appeal and certiorari was denied. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State seeks to compel the respondent to dissolve a stay of execution and sentences granted by the respondent to two convicted persons.
The defendants were convicted in a non-jury trial and given three-year sentences. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed by this court and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of Florida. Soto v. State, 325 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert, dismissed July 30, 1976, 336 So. 2d 1184. The defendants then moved the trial court to mitigate the sentences and the trial court did so.
On the State’s petition for certiorari, this court reviewed the trial court’s order mitigating sentences; quashed same, and reinstated the original three-year sentences on the grounds that the trial court acted after the 60-day time period for such action had elapsed and, thus, lacked jurisdiction over the case. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of Florida. See: State v. Sotto, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sotto v. State, 359 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.1978). The defendants then moved the trial court for a stay pending review of a petition for habeas corpus by the Federal District Court, and the trial court granted the stay. The State then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the trial judge to comply with this court’s order and execute the sentences.
The State has the right to have the judgment and sentences, which were reinstated by this court, enforced by the trial court, and the trial court has the duty to do so under this court’s mandate. The writ of mandamus will lie to prevent the derogation of this court’s authority. State v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837 (1930); Bishop v. Chillingworth, 114 Fla. 286, 154 So. 254 (1934); Berger v. Leposky, 103 So. 2d 628 (Fla.1958). The mandate issued by this court read, in part, as follows:
* * * * * *
“YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida and the laws of the State of Florida.”
* * * * * *
A trial judge has no alternative but to obey a mandate of a higher court, unless it is appropriately stayed. The respondent says he has the power to grant a stay of a mandate of this court pursuant to Florida Rules Appellate Procedure 9.310. This reliance is misplaced; a writ of habeas corpus to a Federal court is not a continuance of the original appellate proceeding. He may possess the power to grant a stay if further appellate review is sought in the United States Supreme Court, but not upon an application for habeas corpus which is an original proceeding filed in a Federal Trial court.
The stay issued by the respondent is vacated; set aside with directions to order the incarceration of the original defendants, Anibal Sotto and Joaquin Amor, in accordance with the opinion heretofore issued by this court and reported in State v. Sotto, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Riley, 648 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…2d at 1098 n. 1. For example, it has been held that where the trial court fails to impose a required mandatory minimum sentence, the State is entitled to a writ of mandamus. See D’Alessandro v. Shearer, 360 So. 2d 774, 775 (Fla.1978); Reno v. Baker, 364 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Similarly, where a trial court imposed a restitution requirement but failed to set the amount, the State was entitled to a writ of certiorari. State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471, 472-73 (Fla.1993). In the exercise of discretion,…
-
State v. Matrascia, 377 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…bond, after denial of their motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Ex Parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494, 192 So. 159 (1939), the opinion of this court in Reno v. Baker, 364 So. 2d 538 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), and the various holdings of the courts of this state that a defendant is not “entitled” to bail pending his appeal from the denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Simmons v. State, 163 S…1 / 2
-
Ferrell v. State, 385 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…Florida for certiorari review of the district court of appeal decision. We hold that only by a stay of proceedings pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(a) may the trial time be extended for the purpose of further appellate proceedings. See Reno v. Baker, 364 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). This question arose in the following manner. The defendant was convicted of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, this court reversed the conviction and remanded the cause f…
Authorities Cited
- Berger v. Leposky, 103 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1958)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. The Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 (Fla. 1930)
- State v. Aníbal Sotto and Joaquin A. Amor, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Bishop v. Chillingworth, 114 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1934)
- Anibal and Rebeca Soto v. State, 325 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)