From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 20, 1998
709 So. 2d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 96-791

Opinion filed May 20, 1998.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. William L. Gary, Judge.

Lawrence Lee Jones, pro se, appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Joy A. Stubbs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.


In accordance with Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 703 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and upon appellee's proper confession of error, we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petition for writ of mandamus without affording petitioner the opportunity to reply to respondent's response below. See Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, the trial court's order denying the petition for writ of mandamus is quashed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WOLF, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jones v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 20, 1998
709 So. 2d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Jones v. Singletary

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE LEE JONES, Appellant, v. HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: May 20, 1998

Citations

709 So. 2d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Zacke v. Moore

We conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the…

Huffman v. Florida Department

Cf. Wilkinson v. McDonough, 960 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (where motion for continuance to file reply was…