HORKENE TERRELL CADE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A writ of mandamus will not be granted when the requested action has already been performed by the trial court, rendering the writ unavailing and without beneficial results.
[1] A writ of mandamus will not be granted when the ministerial duty sought to be enforced has already been performed by the trial court, as the writ would be unavailing and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator.”
Court citing State v. McRae, 38 So. 605, 606 (Fla. 1905) for the principle that mandamus is unavailable when it would be futile.
Cade petitioned for a writ of mandamus requesting that the trial court be compelled to enter a written order on his motion to correct illegal sentence…
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 Appeal Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-2339 Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-CF-61-A-M, 14-CF-149-A-M & 14-CF-158-A-M ________________
Horkene Terrell Cade, Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.
Horkene Terrell Cade, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for respondent.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Horkene Terrell Cade petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. He requests that we compel the trial court to enter a written order on his motion to correct illegal sentence so that he may file an appeal. But the trial court entered a written order denying the motion in July 2025. Since the trial court did so, there is no action for us to compel. See State v. McRae, 38 So. 605, 606 (Fla. 1905) (“[T]he writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator.”); State ex rel. Knott v. Haskell, 72 So. 651, 659 (Fla. 1916) (“The writ of mandamus is granted by the courts to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law where such duty has not been performed as the law requires.”); State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 150 So. 508, 511 (Fla. 1933) (“A writ of mandamus is a commonlaw writ used to coerce the performance of any and all official duties where the official charged by law with the performance of such duty refused or failed to perform the same . . . .”). For that reason, the petition is denied. Petition denied.