Skip to main content

Huffman v. State

Citations

  • 813 So. 2d 10
  • 2001 WL 617716

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a petitioner for a writ of mandamus “has no right to continue to file procedurally barred . . . petitions” and, therefore, “is not entitled to mandamus relief as a means to override the lower courts’ sanction orders”
  • holding petitioners for postconviction relief convicted of crimes classified as capital, but not actually sentenced to death, qualify as “noncapital defendants” under rule 3.850(b)
  • explaining “even if a felony is classified in the Florida Statutes as a capital offense, it is not ‘capital’ under case law unless its subject to the death penalty”
  • \In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus ... the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.\
  • mandamus petition dismissed pursuant to Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So.2d 974 (Fla.2002)
  • “In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.