Opinion
Case No. SC05-1545.
February 7, 2006.
Lower Tribunal No. 3D05-1815.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 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); State ex rel. Ostroff v. Pearson, 61 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1952) (stating that a writ of mandamus should not be issued where to do so would prove unavailing or compliance with it would be nugatory or without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator); State ex rel. N. St. Lucie River Drainage Dist., 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943) ("It is well settled that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its jurisdiction when such court possesses jurisdiction and refuses to exercise it, but mandamus cannot be maintained to control or direct the manner in which such court shall act in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.").
WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.