James Widner, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent. (2026)

James Widner petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for rehearing of the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. But the trial court has ruled on the motion. It rendered an order denying the motion on February 3, 2026.

And 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 common-law 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 ․”); Cade v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D2656 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 17, 2025) (“Since the trial court did so, there is no action for us to compel.”). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Petition denied.

PER CURIAM.