Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

709 So. 2d 656

Docket No. 96-791.

Jones v. Singletary

Lawrence Lee JONES, Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-05-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2008

3 state decisions

Relies on 703 So. 2d 1202 - Sheley v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N · 687 So. 2d 254 - Bard v. Wolson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Lawrence Lee Jones, appellant, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Joy A. Stubbs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In accordance with Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm'n,703 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and upon appellee's proper confession of error, we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petition for writ of mandamus without affording petitioner the opportunity to reply to respondent's response *657 below. See Bard v. Wolson,687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, the trial court's order denying the petition for writ of mandamus is quashed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

¶5REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

¶6WOLF, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

/709/so2d/656 · .json · Public domain