HUTTO v. STATE (2016)

Pro se petitioner Dennis Hutto seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to complete its ministerial duty of transmitting Hutto's timely notice of appeal of an order prohibiting him from further pro se filings to this court. Finding merit to Hutto's claim, we grant the petition.

The circuit judge in this case entered an order prohibiting the petitioner from bringing further pro se filings on December 9, 2015. The petitioner filed a timely motion for rehearing on December 10, 2015.¹ The court denied the motion on December 21, 2015. The petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on December 28, 2015. Instead of docketing and transmitting the notice of appeal to this court, the court sent it back to the petitioner with a letter stating that the court refused to accept the notice of appeal on the basis of the order prohibiting further pro se filings.

The circuit court entered an appealable order and had the ministerial duty to accept the petitioner's notice of appeal and transmit a certified copy to this court. See, e.g., G.W. v. Rushing, 22 So.3d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The circuit court could not use the order prohibiting the petitioner from further pro se filings—the very same order, in fact, that the petitioner was attempting to appeal—to refuse to accept a timely notice of appeal of an appealable order that the court rendered.

The petition is granted. The circuit court is directed to transmit to this court a certified copy of the petitioner's notice of appeal.

PETITION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM.

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.