Case Name: Robert J. AUMILLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-08-22
Citations: 988 So. 2d 1239
Docket Number: No. 5D08-1818
Parties: Robert J. AUMILLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 988
Pages: 1239–1240

Head Matter:
Robert J. AUMILLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 5D08-1818.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug. 22, 2008.
Robert J. Aumiller, Blountstown, Pro Se.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Aumiller filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit to rule on his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, on April 28, 2007. In May 2008, the State, after failing to respond to the circuit court's order to file a response on or before April 24, 2008, sought a 120-day extension, which the circuit court granted. The Attorney General now urges that this Court dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus because "the circuit court is aware of the pending motion." We decline to do so.
Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time. Matthews v. Circuit Court, 515 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). "While we are loath to interfere with a trial judge's management of his or her docket, we are concerned that the failure to rule" on Aumiller's motion impairs his right of access to the courts and due process. Johnson v. State, 938 So.2d 639, 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). We recognize that the circuit court has an enormous caseload, but we also believe that an unreasonable delay has ensued in the consideration of Aumiller's postconviction motion.
Accordingly, we direct the judge to whom this matter is assigned to rule on Aumiller's rule 3.850 motion within thirty days following the receipt of this order. If an evidentiary hearing is required, an additional sixty days will be allowed to conduct that hearing.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
LAWSON, J., dissents, with opinion.