descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Huffman v. Moore

Citations: 834 So. 2d 300; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19337; 2002 WL 31887655Docket: No. 1D01-3640

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 29, 2002; Florida; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
The appellate court addresses an appeal following the trial court's failure to comply with its previous instructions in Huffman v. Moore. The appellant's initial petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed due to a missed partial payment of court costs, which led to the appellate court’s prior mandate requiring the trial court to (1) verify whether the Department of Corrections hindered the appellant from making the initial payment timely, and (2) assess the appellant's indigency status to determine reimbursement for court costs paid voluntarily.

On remand, the trial court reinstated the petition, fulfilling the first directive. However, the appellant later motioned to enforce the mandate, claiming non-compliance with the second directive. The appellate court granted this motion, ordering the trial court to ascertain the appellant's indigency status at the time of the initial dismissal and to reimburse any court costs if he was found to be indigent. The trial court failed to act on this order, prompting the current appeal.

The appellate court notes that the appellant does not contest the merits of the petition's denial, thereby waiving any challenges. Instead, the focus is on the trial court's failure to comply with the enforcement of the mandate, which is deemed a ministerial duty that cannot be altered or ignored by the trial court. Consequently, the appellate court affirms the denial of the writ of mandamus but reverses the order regarding compliance with the mandate and remands for the trial court to take the necessary actions as previously ordered. The decision concludes with a confirmation of concurrence from the judges involved.