NILES B. WHITTEN
v.
DEBORAH CLARK, TREMEKA JOHNSON, AND MEAGO MCGRIFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA JONES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A petitioner seeking certiorari relief must demonstrate irreparable harm, and where the petitioner has not been charged and may never be charged, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant certiorari relief.
[1] To invoke a court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari relief, a petitioner must demonstrate irreparable harm; where a petitioner has not been charged with any crime and ma…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because Petitioner's claim for certiorari relief fails to show irreparable harm, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant him the relief he seeks.”
Court's conclusion regarding lack of jurisdiction
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari challenging a trial court order, apparently related to a smartphone passcode. The petitioner had not been charg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Protection Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, and MEAGO MCGRIFF, individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Patricia Jones,
Respondents. _____________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.
May 3, 2023
B.L. THOMAS, J.
The Court dismisses the petition for writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner fails to show irreparable harm. See State v. Garcia, 350 So. 3d 322, 323 (Fla. 2022) (holding that the trial court’s order compelling a smartphone’s passcode did not cause the defendant irreparable harm where, although it might materially injure his defense at trial, the defendant could adequately remedy the potential material injuries on appeal from the final order); Foster v. State, 326 So. 3d 1192, 1194–95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (holding that the petitioner failed to show that he was irreparably
harmed by a trial court’s order compelling his smartphone’s passcode over his Fifth Amendment objection because the petitioner could raise his arguments on direct appeal or in a motion to suppress). Unlike in Foster, Petitioner has not even been charged and may never be charged. Because Petitioner’s claim for certiorari relief fails to show irreparable harm, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant him the relief he seeks.
DISMISSED.
WINOKUR and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review v. Caprice (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Foster v. State, 326 So. 3d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Because Petitioner’s claim for certiorari relief fails to demonstrate irreparable harm, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant him the relief he seeks.”). LEWIS, M.K. THOMAS, and LONG, JJ., concur. ____________________…
-
Gibson v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA REGINALD D. GIBSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 1D2024-1468 Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. June 14, 2024 PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See State v. Garcia, 350 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 2022). RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Barbara Busharis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahas…
-
Hill v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)…tial requirements of law. If the petitioner fails to satisfy the jurisdictional elements, this court dismisses the petition rather than denying it." Plantz v. John, 170 So. 3d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citation omitted); see also Foster v. State, 326 So. 3d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) ("The rule of law is clear: district courts must first analyze the 'threshold jurisdictional' requirement of irreparable harm, and if it is not met, then the inquiry must end there."). Mr. Hill satisfies the jurisdictional…