MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE FREDRICKA SMITH, RESPONDENT
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.
Rodriguez petitioned for a writ of mandamus to enforce a trial court order requiring a Miami police officer to retrieve personal property seized by the Philadelphia Police Department. The court denied the petition, holding that the original order exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction because the Philadelphia Police Department was not subject to Dade County's authority.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because Rodriguez failed to demonstrate that any Florida official had the ability to comply with the order or that he had a clear legal right to its enforcement. The original order exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction as the Philadelphia Police Department was not subject to the Dade County court's authority.
[1] A writ of mandamus will not be granted where the petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the performance of the duty in question.
[2] A court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel an act that the respondent cannot legally perform.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A writ of mandamus will not be issued unless it is apparent that the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance by the respondent of the particular duty in question.”
Establishes the standard for granting mandamus relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was arrested in Philadelphia on homicide charges, and the Philadelphia Police Department seized his personal property. He filed a replevin a…
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 Replevin cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to enforce an order it entered on November 7,1991. We deny the petition.
The petitioner was arrested in Philadelphia on homicide charges. The City of Philadelphia Police Department seized certain personal property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a replevin action against the City of Miami Police Department seeking return of his property. The trial court ordered a Miami police officer to retrieve the property from the Philadelphia Police Department and return it to the petitioner’s attorney. Apparently this was done because this particular officer had either been involved in the investigation in Philadelphia or had traveled there in connection with an investigation of other charges against the petitioner in Dade County.
When the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed a motion to enforce the order. The trial judge did not rule on the motion, so the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus that sought an order from this court compelling that trial judge to rule on the motion. In the meantime a successor judge ruled on the motion and held that the order previously issued was unenforceable because the City of Philadelphia Police Department was not an entity subject to the jurisdiction of the Dade County court and it held the property in connection with its own investigation. Therefore, the court ruled, the City of Miami police officer would have no authority to comply with the order. The court advised the petitioner to file the appropriate motion in the Philadelphia courts.1
This court denied the petition for writ of mandamus because the court had ruled on the motion and the issue was moot. Rodriguez v. Hon. Ralph N. Person, 652 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The petitioner then filed this second petition for a writ of mandamus seeking once again to enforce the original trial court order. In our view, the order entered by the successor trial court judge was entirely correct. It stated that the original order could not be enforced because it “exceeded the authority and jurisdiction of the issuing Court.” There was no showing that the City of Miami police officer had the ability to retrieve the property and there is no question that the court did not have the authority to order the City of Philadelphia Police Department to produce the property.
Under these circumstances, a petition for a writ of mandamus will not be granted. A writ of mandamus will not be issued unless it is apparent that the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance by the respondent of the particular duty in question. State ex rel. Davis v. Buckets, 147 Fla. 597, 3 So. 2d 170,171 (1941). The courts will not command an officer to perform an act which the officer cannot legally perform at the time the petition is filed, nor one that would be futile. State ex rel. Walker v. Best, 121 Fla. 304,163 So. 696 (1935). In addition, a showing that a person has no ability to comply with the order justifies noncompli-anee. State ex rel. Titus v. Peacock, 125 Fla. 452,170 So. 127 (1936).
Since the petitioner has not demonstrated that any Florida official has the ability to comply with the order, or that he has a clear legal right to enforcement of the order, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
. This may still be a viable option.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sargeant v. Mohammad Anwar Farid Al-Saleh, 137 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…. See Paciocco v. Young, Stem & Tannenbaum, P.A., 481 So. 2d 39, 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“A Florida trial court has no in rem jurisdiction over notes secured by mortgages on real property located in a foreign state....”); see also Rodriguez v. Smith, 673 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (order requiring Miami police officer to retrieve petitioner’s personal property from the City of Philadelphia Police Department was not enforceable because the City of Philadelphia Police Department is outside the trial cour…
-
Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc., 715 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…order to return the automobiles would have been futile. Florida law does not require trial courts to enter orders which are impossible to execute or which require parties to perform acts that cannot be of any force or effect. See Rodriguez v. Smith, 673 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Next, Fidelity argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the default judgment entered in the New York court was res judicata as to the Florida lawsuit because the default judgment was void. Fidelity maintains that th…
-
Hughes v. State, 967 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…o authority to exempt a qualifying person from such designation. § 775.24, Fla. Stat. (2003). Mandamus relief is available only to require performance of legally authorized acts and thus cannot be invoked in this case. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Smith, 673 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Petition denied. SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Best, 121 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1935)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Bob Davis v. Buckels, 147 Fla. 597 (Fla. 1941)
- State v. Peacock, 125 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1936)