BEAVER v. STATE, 7 So.3d 535 (Fla. 2009)

No. SC08-2259.Supreme Court of Florida.
March 16, 2009.

Lower Tribunal No(s). CF00-897.

To the extent that the petition seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition, the petition is denied. See State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943) (“It is well settled that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its jurisdiction when such court possesses jurisdiction and refuses to exercise it, but mandamus cannot be maintained to control or direct the manner in which such court shall act in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.”); 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). See also Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 1998) (recognizing that courts have inherent authority to sanction abusive litigants); Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216, 1216 (Fla. 1995) (same).

To the extent that the petition seeks to invoke the Court’s all writs jurisdiction, it is dismissed. “The all writs provision of section 3(b)(7) 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. . . .” St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980). See also Florida Senate v. Graham, 412 So. 2d 360, 361(Fla. 1982) (stating that “all writs” jurisdiction permits review of matters and issuance of writs necessary to aid in the exercise of the Court’s “ultimate jurisdiction”).

PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.