Mandamus does not lie to review legal error, and courts lack jurisdiction to treat late petitions as certiorari.
The petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order that struck his motion to dismiss, which asserted immunity under Florida law, as untimely. The court addresses whether mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to review a trial court’s ruling on the timeliness of an immunity claim. The court applies the rule that mandamus does not lie to review a trial court’s ruling for legal error or to compel a specific ruling, noting that a petition for writ of certiorari would have been the proper vehicle. However, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition as certiorari because it was filed more than thirty days after the rendition of the trial court’s order. Consequently, the court dismisses the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
At page 57 cited at this page1 citing case
- Steven Bembridge v. State of Florida, 404 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).published Conover, 346 So. 3d at 57.
v.
State of Florida
FOURTH DISTRICT
RYAN ANDREW CONOVER,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
No. 4D22-315
[June 8, 2022]
Petition for writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-CF-002648-AXXX-MB.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M.
Solages-Jones, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks review of an order striking his motion to dismiss asserting a claim of immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes, as untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c). Mandamus does not lie to review a trial court’s ruling for legal error or to compel the court to rule in a certain way. Smith v. Lambdin, 971 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). A petition for writ of certiorari would have been the proper vehicle to seek review of the trial court’s ruling. See Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Rogers v. State, 301 So. 3d 1083, 1083-84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Casanova v. State, 335 So. 3d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Corbett v. State, No. 5D21-3166, 2022 WL 1509106, at *2 (Fla. 5th DCA May 13, 2022). However, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition as a petition for writ of certiorari because it was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the trial court’s order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h), 9.100(c)(1); see also Decktight Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Petition dismissed.
DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.