From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
Aug 29, 2016
198 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 1D16–1525.

08-29-2016

Kenneth D. WATSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Kenneth D. Watson, pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.


Kenneth D. Watson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner's motion to render ruling is treated by the court as a response to its order to show cause why his petition for writ of mandamus should not be denied on the authority of Munn v. Florida Parole Commission, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Upon consideration of the response, we conclude that denial of the petition is appropriate given the circuit court's recent issuance of an order requiring the state to respond to petitioner's pending motion for postconviction relief. As we did in Munn, however, we encourage the circuit court to promptly rule on the merits of the claim before it.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Watson v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
Aug 29, 2016
198 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Case details for

Watson v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH D. WATSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

Date published: Aug 29, 2016

Citations

198 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)