Summary
holding that petitioner was entitled to mandamus relief where district court of appeal failed to comply with "indisputable legal duty" under rule 2.540
Summary of this case from Doe v. StateOpinion
No. SC09–993.
2012-07-3
Demetrio R. GABRIELE, Petitioner(s) v. STATE of Florida, Respondent(s).
Petitioner Demetrio R. Gabriele has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court compel the Fourth District Court of Appeal to accept pleadings filed in Braille and to correspond with him in Braille formatted documents. “[T]o be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.” Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000). It has been agreed that the Petitioner is legally blind. We hold that the Petitioner is entitled to mandamus relief.
First, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grant the Petitioner a clear legal right of access to the courts. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 523, 529 (2004). Second, the Fourth District has an indisputable legal duty to provide accommodations to the Petitioner. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540(a) mandates that Florida courts will provide to “[q]ualified individuals, ... at the court's expense, ... accommodations, reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, in order [for those individuals] to participate in programs or activities provided by the courts of this state.” Moreover, section 12182 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) states that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the ... services, facilities, ... or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (1990). The substantive merit or lack of merit in the Petitioner's underlying claim does not determine the ADA analysis. The Fourth District has refused to provide the Petitioner with an accommodation as mandated by the ADA and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. Third, the Petitioner has no remedy available other than to petition this Court for relief. Consequently, the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for mandamus and we grant the mandamus petition as it pertains to Braille formatted documents.
Having accepted jurisdiction, seeart. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const., we exercise our discretion to address the substantive merits of the underlying claims. See Price v. State, 995 So.2d 401, 406 (Fla.2008); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla.1982) (“[O]nce we accept jurisdiction over a cause in order to resolve a legal issue ... we may, in our discretion, consider other issues properly raised and argued before this Court.”). With regard to the underlying merits of the Petitioner's claims, we deny relief. We have thoroughly considered the challenges that the Petitioner raises with regard to his conviction and conclude that they are without merit.
Therefore, we withhold issuance of the writ because we have resolved this case on the merits and trust that the Fourth District Court of Appeal will fully comply with the dictates of this order when presented with similar situations in the future.
It is so ordered.