SAMUEL DELEON GRATE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Samuel Deleon Grate petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to review a per curiam affirmance without opinion by the Third District Court of Appeal. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review per curiam appellate decisions rendered without a written opinion, regardless of whether the petition is styled as a mandamus petition or otherwise.
The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of district courts rendered without a written opinion, regardless of how the petition seeking review is styled. The Court's extraordinary writs jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the jurisdictional limitations established in Jenkins v. State and St. Paul Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis.
[1] The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review a per curiam affirmed decision without a written opinion when the basis for review is an alleged conflict with anot…
[2] A party cannot use the Florida Supreme Court's "all writs" jurisdiction to circumvent the rule that the court lacks jurisdiction to review per curiam affirmed decisions w…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a per curiam affirmed decision without a written opinion where the basis for review is an alleged conflict between that decision and an opinion issued by either this Court or another district court of appeal”
Establishes the foundational jurisdictional rule from Jenkins that the Supreme Court cannot review per curiam affirmances without opinions based on alleged conflicts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrate filed a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 in the trial court. The trial court denied this moti…
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 All Writs Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Samuel Deleon Grate petitions this Court for writ of mandamus. For the reasons expressed below, we dismiss Grate’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
In the instant case, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a decision that affirmed without an opinion the trial court’s denial of Grate’s motion to correct his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. In his peti tion, Grate seeks review of the district court’s decision, arguing that the court’s affirmance is inconsistent with this Court’s opinion in Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1992). Grate states that he has no other remedy available to him because “neither the trial court nor the Third District Court of Appeal provided any form of written opinion or cited case law to support their [sic] per curiam affirmed decision.”
In Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980), this Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to review a per curiam affirmed decision without a written opinion where the basis for review is an alleged conflict between that decision and an opinion issued by either this Court or another district court of appeal. In St. Paul Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1304-05 (Fla.1980), this Court further held that a petitioner could not utilize the Court’s “all writs” jurisdiction to seek discretionary review of a per curiam affir-mance without opinion. In so holding, the Court stated that it would “not allow the ‘all writs necessary’ provision of section 3(b)(7) to be used to circumvent the clear language of section 3(b)(3) and [the Court’s] holding in Jenkins v. State that [it] lack[s] jurisdiction to review per cu-riam decisions of the several district courts of appeal of this state rendered without opinion when the basis for such review is an alleged conflict of that decision with another.”
In the instant case, had the Third District issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s denial of Grate’s motion, his petition for mandamus would have been treated as a timely-filed petition for review. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c)(“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought .... ”); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.120(b) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction must be filed within thirty days of rendition of order to be reviewed). However, the Third District did not issue an opinion and Grate now seeks review of his case through a petition for writ of mandamus.
Regardless of how a petition seeking review of a district court decision is styled, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions rendered without opinion and this Court’s holding in Jenkins cannot be circumvented simply by seeking relief by filing an extraordinary writ petition. Therefore, today we extend this Court’s ruling in St. Paul and hold that those provisions of the Florida Constitution governing this Court’s jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs may not be used to seek review of an appellate court decision issued without a written opinion. See Art. V, § (3)(b)(7)-(9), Fla. Const. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Grate’s mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JL, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)…a. Jan. 8, 2009) (No. SC08-1769) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); James v. McDonough, 973 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. Dec. 11, 2007) (No. SC07-2209) (habeas corpus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Grate v. State, 750 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1999)). . See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (“[I]t is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or conviction and sentence.”)…
-
Persaud v. State, 838 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2003)…1 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla.1981) (“It is not necessary that a district court explicitly identify conflicting district court or supreme court decisions in its opinion in order to create an ‘express’ conflict under section 3(b)(3)”). In Grate v. State, 750 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla.1999), we concluded that “[rjegardless of how a petition seeking review of a district court decision is styled, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions rendered without opinion and this Court’s holding in Jenki…
-
Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2002)…Court’s all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction as petitioner is hereby seeking to use it. St. Paul, 392 So. 2d at 1304-05. Almost twenty years after the decision in St. Paul, this Court clarified, in Grate v. State, 750 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1999), that the reasoning of St. Paul extended to all extraordinary writ petitions and not just those seeking to invoke this Court’s “all writs” jurisdiction. In Grate, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which sought review…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992)
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- ST. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1980)