FRANCISCO PERALTA-MEJIA

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1719 Lower Tribunal No. F25-14267 ________________

Francisco Peralta-Mejia, Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Carlos Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J.

2

Petitioner, Francisco Peralta-Mejia, seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the circuit court judge from issuing a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum securing his temporary return from federal immigration custody to state custody. He asserts a lack of jurisdiction below and that issuing the writ will preclude him from obtaining release from immigration custody; hence, prohibition is his only remedy to prevent the operation of a classic “Catch-22.” For the reasons below, we deny the petition. I Petitioner was arrested and later charged by information with one count of battery on a person 65 years of age or older, in violation of section 784.08(2), Florida Statutes (2024). He posted a bond and was released from the local jail into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody on a federal immigration detainer. The detainer stated, in material part, “probable cause exists that the subject is a removable individual” due to “[t]he pendency of ongoing removal proceedings.” It further noted petitioner “poses a risk to national security, border security, or public safety.” Respondent, the State of Florida, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in the circuit court, seeking petitioner’s temporary

3 return to state custody. The court granted the petition but withheld formal ruling to allow petitioner to seek a writ of prohibition. II A

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and only available to prevent an inferior court from erroneously acting outside of its jurisdiction. See S. Records & Tape Serv. v. Goldman, 502 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1986). It does not lie to prevent “an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.” English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 297 (Fla. 1977). Consistent with these threshold principles, prohibition may not be used to divest a lower tribunal of jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of its own jurisdiction; nor may it be used to test the correctness of a lower tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction where the existence of jurisdiction depends on controverted facts that the inferior tribunal has jurisdiction to determine.

Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850, 854 (Fla. 1992). The writ is intended to be “narrow in scope, to be employed with great caution and utilized only in emergencies,” English, 348 So. 2d at 296, and “where there is no other ‘appropriate and adequate legal remedy.’” Sutton v. State, 975 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 2008) (quoting S. Records & Tape Serv, 502 So. 2d at 414)); see also Crill v. State Rd. Dep't, 117 So. 795, 797 (1928) (“[I]t matters not whether the court below has decided correctly or erroneously; its

4 jurisdiction of the matter in controversy being conceded, prohibition will not lie to prevent an erroneous exercise of that jurisdiction.”). B

The Florida Constitution vests the circuit courts with “the power to issue writs of mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction.” Art. 5, § 5(b), Fla. Const.; see also § 79.01, Fla. Stat. (2025) (authorizing a detainee to petition “the Supreme Court or any justice thereof, or to any district court of appeal or any judge thereof or to any circuit judge for a writ of habeas corpus”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(3) (“Circuit courts may issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, common law certiorari, and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction.”). Traditionally, the writ of habeas corpus protects against government overreach by providing a procedure for challenging illegal detention. Consequently, it has been labeled the “Great Writ.” See Henry v. Santana, 62 So. 3d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 2011). Writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum similarly guard against indefinite detention, as they provide a framework for ensuring comity between dueling prosecuting authorities. See Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 621 (1961).

Against this background, we examine the case at hand. Casting aside the fact that “[a] final order of the circuit court granting or denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is reviewable by appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal,” Sumler v. State, 958 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 28.6 (2002)), a careful review of the underlying petition reveals it amounts to little more than a request for petitioner’s temporary return to Miami-Dade County to resolve the pending felony charge. It does not contain a command, and upon this