Case Name: Roger CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-07-23
Citations: 883 So. 2d 835
Docket Number: No. 5D04-1900
Parties: Roger CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 883
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
Roger CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 5D04-1900.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 23, 2004.
Roger Chapman, Arcadia, Pro Se.
No Appearance for Respondent.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, J.
Roger Chapman petitions this court for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We deny the petition as it fails to allege that Chapman has made the trial court aware of the pending motion.
In a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the trial court's attention. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). For purposes of seeking a hearing, it is of no significance that the petitioner is incarcerated or involuntarily committed. Although Chapman has been involuntarily committed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, presumably, he would be able to attend a telephonic hearing should the trial court decide to hold one. Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So.2d 1056 (Fla.1991) (trial court has discretion to decide whether to hold a telephonic hearing in prisoner's civil case, but may not make prisoner's physical presence a condition precedent to ruling on pending matters). Accordingly, we deny Chapman's petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. Chapman must first make the trial court aware of his pending motion and seek a hearing.
MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.