Opinion
CASE NO.: SC13-378 Lower Tribunal No.: 5D11-3568 Lower Tribunal No.: 88-3408-CFA Lower Tribunal No.: 5D12-2333 Lower Tribunal No.: 2011-CA-4601 Lower Tribunal No.: 5D09-4538 Lower Tribunal No.: 5D07-1355
06-03-2013
MARK E. OSTERBACK Petitioner(s) v. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent(s)
To the extent that the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition, the amended petition is hereby denied because petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a lower court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. See Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992); English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977).
To the extent that the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, the amended petition is hereby denied because a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the manner in which a court shall act in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943); see also Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (stating that mandamus "is not an appropriate vehicle for review of a merely erroneous decision nor is it proper to mandate the doing (or undoing) of a discretionary act"), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983).
To the extent that the petitioner seeks to invoke this Court's all writs jurisdiction, the amended petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner has failed to cite an independent basis that would allow the Court to exercise its all writs authority and no such basis is apparent on the face of the petition. See Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541, 543-44 (Fla. 2005); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980).
The "Motion for a Stay Pending Review" is hereby denied as moot. All other requests for relief are hereby denied. PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and PERRY, JJ., concur. A True Copy
Test:
______________
Thomas D. Hall
Clerk, Supreme Court
kb
Served:
HON. PAMELA R. MASTERS, CLERK
MARK OSTERBACK
HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
HON. MARYANNE MORSE, CLERK