SHAKESPEARE v. STATE (2021)

In this petition for writ of mandamus, Petitioner argues that the circuit court improperly struck his motion for postconviction relief as facially insufficient and seeks to compel the circuit court to rule on the merits of the motion. Mandamus relief is inappropriate because the circuit court complied with its ministerial duty to take action on the motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court's order is not a final, appealable order. See Shelley v. State, 993 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). If Petitioner seeks review of the circuit court's decision that the motion for postconviction relief was facially insufficient, he must first obtain a final order denying the motion for postconviction relief without leave to amend. See Howard v. State, 976 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“If leave to amend has been given by the trial court, a defendant may not appeal until he has obtained a denial of the motion that does not include leave to amend.”). Accordingly, the Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus on the merits.

Petitioner previously unsuccessfully sought the same relief in his petition for writ of mandamus in case number 1D21-0996. The Court warns Petitioner that any future filings raising the same issue may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court related to circuit court cases 2017-CF-5303 and 2018-CF-2338 and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2021).

Per Curiam.

Ray, Osterhaus, and Nordby, JJ., concur.