Opinion
No. SC07-259.
May 3, 2007.
To the extent that 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 (Fla. 2005) (stating that "this all writs provision, however, does not constitute a separate source of original or appellate jurisdiction. Rather, it operates as an aid to the Court in exercising its `ultimate jurisdiction,' conferred elsewhere in the constitution. . . ."); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980) (stating that "all writs provision of [article V,] section 3(b)( 7) [of the Florida Constitution] does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on this Court, and this Court's all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction as petitioner is hereby seeking to use it.").
To the extent that petitioner seeks mandamus relief, the petition is 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).
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.