TIMOTHY MARTIN, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE ELLEN J. MORPHONIOS, ETC., RESPONDENTS
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 court held that the petitioner's request for documents and a transcript was premature as he had not yet filed a proper motion for post-conviction relief.
An incarcerated petitioner, deemed insolvent, applied for mandamus to obtain copies of court documents and a sentencing transcript. The trial court ha…
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 Pleading Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an application for mandamus filed by a petitioner who is incarcerated under state court judgment. The petitioner is deemed insolvent for all purposes here and in the trial court.
The petitioner has requested this court’s assistance in the procurement of copies of capias, judgment, and sentence. These documents are presumptively on file with the clerk of the trial court.
The petitioner has filed a motion to have the transcript of the sentencing proceedings transcribed and provided to him. The trial court evidently has not ruled upon this application. The petitioner obviously wants to file a collateral attack to the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. The petitioner has the obligation to file a motion for such relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 pleading ultimate facts demonstrating why the sentence is illegal. At that point, it will be incumbent upon the trial court to determine the legal sufficiency of the pleading and if insufficient it may be denied without any hearing. If the court determines that an answer is required) it will order the state attorney to do so. If the motion is facially sufficient but the files and papers and transcript show to the contrary, it will be incumbent upon the trial court to require the portions of the trial court record to be attached to any order which it enters. At this point, it appears that the petitioner’s request here and in the trial court is at best premature.
The application for mandamus is denied without prejudice.
BARKDULL, NESBITT and LEVY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koff v. Hon. John W. Booth, 679 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ecause Koff has not complied with an order of that court. In other words, Koff, not the trial court, is responsible for the delay. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice because it is premature at best. See Martin v. Morphonios, 580 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). WRIT DENIED. GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially in result only. DAUSKCH, J., dissents, without opinion.…