Opinion
No. SC07-1501.
September 18, 2007.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 5D07-1604.
To the extent petitioner seeks mandamus relief, the petition is denied because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the reinstatement of his appeal in the district court. 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).
To the extent petitioner seeks to invoke this Court's all writs jurisdiction, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541, 543-44 (Fla. 2005) (stating that "[i]n the present cases . . . neither petitioner . . . cites 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 petitions"); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980).
To the extent petitioner seeks review of the district court's decision in Roman v. State, Case No. 5D07-1604, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Grate v. State, 750 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1999).
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and BELL, JJ., concur.