Opinion
Case No. SC06-2185.
January 10, 2007.
Lower Tribunal Nos. 3D05-1630, 3D05-2506.
To the extent that the petitioner is seeking an order to compel the Third District Court of Appeal to enforce its mandate in Case No. 3D05-2506, petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right 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); see also State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943); 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 is seeking review of the decisions rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal in Case Nos. 3D05-1630 and 3D05-2506, respectively, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974, 978 (Fla. 2002) (stating that this Court does not have discretionary review jurisdiction or extraordinary writ jurisdiction to review per curiam denials of relief, issued without opinion or explanation, whether they be in opinion form or by way of an unpublished order).
WELLS, PARIENTE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., would request a response.