From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holston v. State

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 4, 2015
171 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2015)

Opinion

No. SC15–372.

05-04-2015

Reginald L. HOLSTON, Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Respondent(s).


Opinion

Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000) ; see also Mathews v. Crews, 132 So.3d 776 (Fla.2014) (stating that “mandamus is neither the appropriate vehicle to seek review of an allegedly erroneous decision by another court, nor is it the proper vehicle to mandate the doing or undoing of a discretionary act.”)

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Holston v. State

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 4, 2015
171 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2015)
Case details for

Holston v. State

Case Details

Full title:Reginald L. HOLSTON, Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Respondent(s).

Court:Supreme Court of Florida.

Date published: May 4, 2015

Citations

171 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2015)