Dutton v. State, 89 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Dutton v. State, 89 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Comprehensive Health Center (fladistctapp, 2015-08-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Comprehensive Health Center
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Relevant here, it has been established that when a lower court fails to follow the law of the case, certiorari is warranted “because such failure exceeds the court’s role in the appellate process.” Dougherty v. City of Miami, 89 So.3d 963, 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); accord, Dougherty v. City of Miami, 23 So.3d 156, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (Wells, J., specially concurring) (granting petition for certiorari and quashing circuit court appellate division’s opinion because it failed to apply the law of the case as established by its own prior decision, which became binding upon this Court’s d…
cited Cited "see" Jordan v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dutton v. State, 89 So.3d 963, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
Frederick Charles DUTTON, Jr.
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 1D11-5871.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Apr 24, 2012.
89 So. 3d 963
Frederick Charles Dutton, Jr., pro se, Petitioner., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Clark, Lewis, Padovano.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Frederick Charles Dutton, Jr., presents a timely claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He asserts that his appellate counsel failed to properly argue that the trial court erred in imposing a three year minimum mandatory sentence under the Law Enforcement Protection Act (“LEPA”), section 775.0823, Florida Statutes. However, because the trial court was required by section 316.1935(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to impose the minimum mandatory term complained of, petitioner suffered no prejudice as a consequence of counsel’s alleged deficiency. Accordingly, the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is DENIED on the merits.

Nonetheless, because the portion of petitioner’s written judgment and sentence identifying LEPA as the basis for the minimum mandatory term is an obvious clerical error, we direct the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence to reflect that the minimum mandatory term was in fact imposed pursuant to section 316.1935(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

PADOVANO, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.