STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
STEVEN PIETRASIUK, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District denied the State's petition for writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court's reversal of a county court's denial of a Rule 3.860 motion, finding the State failed to establish a departure from clearly established law.
A petition for writ of certiorari must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law, not merely a legal error by the lower court.
[1] A writ of certiorari requires demonstration of a departure from the essential requirements of law, which is something more than a simple legal error by the lower court.
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“the departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error”
Court explaining the standard for certiorari relief, quoting Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co.
The State sought a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court's reversal of the county court's denial of respondent's Florida Rule of Criminal Proc…
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 Second Tier Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The State petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court’s reversal of the county court’s denial of respondent’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860 motion.
We deny the State’s petition for writ of certiorari, as the State failed to establish a departure from the clearly established principles of law. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So.3d 344, 356-56 (Fla.2012).
We note, however, that the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari does not necessarily connote agreement with the circuit court’s conclusion. Rather, this court is bound by the limited standard of review of second-tier certiorari and, though we may find the circuit court’s conclusion was erroneous, erroneous conclusions do not amount to departures from the essential requirements of the law remediable by certiorari. Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1093 (Fla.2010); see also Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., *641774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000) (“[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error”).
As such, we DENY the State’s petition for -writ of certiorari.
ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur; WINOKUR, J., concurs with opinion.
concurring.
“A decision made according to the form of law and the rules prescribed for rendering.it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to the facts, is not an illegal or irregular act or proceeding remediable by certiora-ri.” Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla.1995) (quoting Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523, 526-27 (1882)). If this case were an appeal from the circuit court decision, I would reverse the decision as a misapplication of Edenfield v. State, 45 So.3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and the requirements of Rule 3.111(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, applying the Heggs standard, I concur in the majority opinion that certiorari is not warranted in this case.
WINOKUR, J.,
concurring.
“A decision made according to the form of law and the rules prescribed for rendering.it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to the facts, is not an illegal or irregular act or proceeding remediable by certiorari.” Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla.1995) (quoting Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523, 526-27 (1882)). If this case were an appeal from the circuit court decision, I would reverse the decision as a misapplication of Edenfield v. State, 45 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and the requirements of Rule 3.111(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, applying the Heggs standard, I concur in the majority opinion that certiorari is not warranted in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Walsh, 204 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ded to the miscarriage of justice standard—to the extent .there is .a standard—“may devour the rule of finality.” State v. Wilson, 690 So. 2d 1361, 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (Altenbernd, J., dissenting). As this court has said in State v. Pietrasiuk, 197 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), a denial of a writ of certiorari does not necessarily connote agreement with a circuit court’s decision. It is obvious that the circuit court below did err in failing to find [*175] Abbey controlling. But, an error below which w…
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012)
- Basnet v. The City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1882)
- Edenfield v. State, 45 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)