DESROSES v. STATE (2021)

Jean Desroses appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of mandamus.¹ After review of the record before us, including the record before us in 3D20-1763, referenced and incorporated herein by both parties, we dismiss the instant appeal on the basis of mootness.² See Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992) (“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.” (citation omitted)); In re T.L. v. State, 35 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (dismissing appeal as moot); Philip J. Padovano, 2 Fla. Prac., Appellate Practice § 1:4 (2019 ed.) (“An appellate proceeding is subject to dismissal if the issues have become moot.”).

Appeal dismissed as moot.

FOOTNOTES

1.   After filing the notice of appeal in this case, Desroses appealed the denial of his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Motion for 3.800” in 3D20-1763. In that case, the lower court denied the petition as moot because corrections to Desroses's sentence had already been made. This Court per curiam affirmed. Desroses v. State, 317 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 3, 2021).

2.   The State was not ordered to respond to the petition below in the instant case. In its Answer Brief, the Department of Corrections, on behalf of the State, noted: “Had the Department been ordered to respond by the trial court, the Department would have argued that the proper venue for the petition for writ of mandamus in this case as to its sentence calculation would be Leon County where the Department's headquarters are located.”

PER CURIAM.