MARK COOPER, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE JON I. GORDON, JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Cooper petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel a trial judge to entertain his motion for return of fines and restitution payments imposed after a conviction that was later reversed and remanded for a new trial. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the trial court retained jurisdiction to correct the effects of its own wrongdoing even after dismissal of the charges on remand.
Yes. A trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain such a motion as part of its inherent power to correct the effects of its own wrongdoing and restore a defendant to the status quo ante, and this jurisdiction is not divested by dismissal of the criminal charges prior to filing the motion.
[1] A writ of mandamus lies to test the correctness of a trial court's ruling that it lacks jurisdiction in a particular cause.
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain a motion for the return of monies paid as penalties, restitution, or costs, following a reversal of the underlying convict…
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 writ of mandamus lies to test the correctness of a trial court's ruling that it has no jurisdiction in a particular cause”
Establishes that mandamus is an appropriate remedy to challenge a trial court's jurisdictional ruling
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCooper was convicted of malicious destruction of personal property and ordered to pay a $500 fine, $350 restitution payment as a probationary conditio…
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 Criminal Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted and the respondent is hereby directed to entertain the petitioner’s subject motion which seeks the return of certain monies herein upon a holding that: (a) a writ of mandamus lies to test the correctness of a trial court’s ruling that it has no jurisdiction in a particular cause, Estevez v. Gordon, 386 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); (b) the respondent trial judge has jurisdiction in this cause, contrary to its ruling below, to entertain the petitioner’s motion herein for the return of a $500 fine, a $350 restitution payment as a probationary condition, and a $90 probation cost payment as a probationary condition [all previously imposed as a penalty by the trial •court upon petitioner’s conviction for malicious destruction of personal property] as part of its inherent power to correct the effects of its own wrongdoing and restore the petitioner to the status quo ante, Masser v. London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474, 508, 145 So. 72, 78 (1932), following a reversal on appeal of said conviction and remand for a new trial, Cooper v. State, 377 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1979), quashing, 356 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), on remand, 379 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and (c). this jurisdiction was not divested by the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal charges against the petitioner upon remand prior to the filing of the instant motion and hearing thereon as the court’s inherent authority to correct its own prior wrongdoing still obtained. Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813, 816 (1931).
We assume that the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus will be unnecessary and that the respondent trial judge upon receipt of this opinion will abide by the directions contained herein.
Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matamoros v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 177 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…essor trial judge’s April 6, 2015 order. II. Analysis We begin our analysis by noting that mandamus is appropriate to compel the circuit court to exercise its jurisdiction. Franklin v. Kearney, 814 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Cooper v. Gordon, 389 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The issue before us is whether Matamo-ros’s June 25, 2013 motion for rehearing— directed toward the trial court’s June 20, 2013 order — was an authorized motion for rehearing, as contemplated by Rule 1.530, or a prohibited secon…
Authorities Cited
- Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)
- Hazen v. Frank A. Smith as Judge of the Cir. Court of the Seventeenth Jud. Cir. of the State of Fla., 101 Fla. 767 (Fla. 1931)
- Cooper v. State, 377 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1979)
- Estevez v. Gordon, 386 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Cooper v. State, 356 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Cooper v. State, 379 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)