Opinion
No. SC12–345.
2012-04-19
Timothy Lee HURST, Petitioner(s) v. STATE of Florida, Respondent(s).
Timothy Lee Hurst petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. Because Petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the mandamus relief requested, and has further failed to show that no other adequate remedy exists, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000) (stating that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, petitioner must show clear legal right to performance of requested act, that respondent has indisputable legal duty to perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists).
Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction, the petition for writ of prohibition is hereby denied. See Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.1992) (prohibition is an extraordinary writ used to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from acting outside its jurisdiction); English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 296 (Fla.1977) (“Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction.”).