PETER A. PISARRI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Peter Pisarri appealed the denial of his writ of mandamus seeking to remove his name from Florida's sexual predator registry. The court affirmed, holding that mandamus was not the appropriate remedy because the trial court's designation order was presumptively valid and any challenge to the sexual predator finding should have been raised via direct appeal.
A writ of mandamus is not available to challenge a sexual predator designation because mandamus only enforces a clear legal duty where no other legal remedy exists. The appropriate remedy for challenging an erroneous sexual predator finding is a direct appeal from the trial court's order, not a mandamus petition.
[1] Mandamus is available only to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of a particular duty, where there is no other legal method of obtaining relief.
[2] A writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to challenge an erroneous judicial finding if an appeal from that order is available.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“mandamus is available only to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of a particular duty, where there is no other legal method of obtaining relief”
Establishes the strict standard for mandamus relief and why it is unavailable here
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced for attempted sexual battery of a child under twelve years of age. Thirteen months after sentencing, the trial court entered 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 Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
Some thirteen months after appellant was sentenced for attempted sexual battery of a child under twelve years of age, the trial court entered a written order declaring him to be a sexual predator and requiring him to comply with the registration requirements of section 775.22, Florida Statutes (1993).
Pursuant to section 775.21(4)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is required to place a defendant’s name on its list of sexual predators once a court makes a written finding that a defendant is a sexual predator. Appellant sought a writ of mandamus to compel FDLE to remove his name from that list and appeals the denial of his petition.
However, mandamus is available only to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of a particular duty, where there is no other legal method of obtaining relief. Pino v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 604 So. 2d 1232 (Fla.1992).
Based upon the trial court’s order, FDLE was required to place appellant’s name on the list of sexual predators and was thus performing its legal duty. If the trial court erroneously found appellant to be a sexual predator, an appeal from that order would have been the appropriate remedy. See Downs v. State, 700 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
The fact that some time intervened between appellant’s sentencing and the court’s determination that appellant was a sexual predator would not, in and of itself, make that finding erroneous. See Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), rev. denied, No. 93,032 (Fla. Aug. 7, 1998); Macias v. State, 708 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 707 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1998);
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…curring specially) (“There are numerous cases where the courts have upheld designation orders rendered long after the defendant was sentenced for the underlying offense.” (citing Thomas v. State, 716 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Pisarri v. State, 724 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), approved, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2005); and Walker v. State, 718 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))). In fact, in this very case the trial court declared the defendant a sexual preda…
-
Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…onvicted and sentenced. It is therefore appealable as an order entered after a "finding of guilt,” pursuant to rule 9.140(b)(1)(C). The motion to dismiss appeal is denied. Id. at 789. This court has adopted the same rationale. In Pisarri v. State, 724 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the trial court, approximately thirteen months after the defendant was sentenced, entered an order finding that the defendant was a sexual predator. The defendant attempted to file a mandamus petition to require that his name be…
Authorities Cited
- Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Elio Pino v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 604 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1992)
- Downs v. State, 700 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- MacIas v. State, 708 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)