MAIKEL PEREZ, PETITIONER,
v.
ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT; STATE OF 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.
The court held that a writ of mandamus compelling a ruling on a resentencing motion is not warranted when the motion is recent and the delay does not affect the sentence duration.
[1] A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires a balancing of the court's interest in managing its docket against a defendant's due process rights.
[2] A delay in resentencing does not violate due process if the resentencing will not alter the duration of the sentence.
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 intelligenceMaikel Perez petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to rule on his motion to set a case for a resentencing hearing after his 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 Docket Management cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maikel Perez petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the circuit court to rule on his motion to set case for re-sentencing hearing following an order modifying his original sentence to remove his classification as a habitual offender. We deny the petition.
The circuit court denied Perez’s second motion to correct an illegal sentence and modified his original sentence only with regards to his classification as a habitual offender. On or about March 14, 2007, Perez filed a motion to set the ease for resentencing. The trial court has not yet ruled on the motion and it forms the subject of the petition now under review.
Perez contends that more than a reasonable amount of time has elapsed since he filed his motion for resentencing without disposition. Furthermore, he contends that the circuit court’s unreasonable delay in scheduling the resentencing is a violation of his right to due process. Perez relies on Mason v. Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, 603 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), where the Fifth District granted a petition for writ of mandamus based upon a ruling which was pending for six months.
The circumstances in this case, however, do not merit the issuance of a writ of mandamus. As the Fifth District stated in Johnson v. State, 938 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), the interest against meddling in the docketing schedule of the trial court and the interest in affording due process to a defendant must be weighed in a court’s determination of whether or not to issue a writ of mandamus. Any delay in the removal of Perez’s classification as a habitual offender does not constitute a due process violation because the resentencing will not change the duration of Perez’s sentence. Furthermore, Perez’s motion is only two months old and he has not yet allowed the court a reasonable time to rule.
We thus afford the circuit court deference to manage its own docket. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Phillips v. State, 938 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Livingston Mason v. Cir. Court, 603 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)