Opinion
Case No. SC06-1059.
January 8, 2007.
Lower Tribunal Nos.: 1D05-5087, 1D05-5441.
To the extent that the petitioner is seeking to compel the First District Court of Appeal to reinstate his appeal in Case No. 1D05-5087, the petition is denied because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (holding that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show that he has a clear legal right to performance of the requested act, that the respondent has an indisputable legal duty to perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists).
To the extent that the Petitioner is seeking to compel the First District Court of Appeal to reinstate his appeal in Case No. 1D05-5441, the petition is denied because the First District Court of Appeal has treated the notice of appeal as timely filed.
The "Motion to Move for Injunctive Relief and Action" and "Re-Requesting Court Permission" are hereby denied.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE and CANTERO, JJ., concur.