Opinion
No. SC05-282.
June 14, 2005.
Lower Tribunal No. F95-17381C.
Petitioner filed a "Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus Ancillary to Post-Conviction Proceedings" which has been treated as a petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(b). On March 2, 2005, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. Having considered petitioner's response, the petition is hereby dismissed as untimely. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.142(b)(3)(A) (providing that "[j]urisdiction of the supreme court shall be invoked by filing a petition with the clerk of the supreme court within 30 days of rendition of the nonfinal order to be reviewed"). Had the instant petition been timely filed, petitioner would not be entitled to relief because he has failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.142(b)(6).
Further, even if the Court were to construe the instant petition as a petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner has not demonstrated a clear entitlement to mandamus relief as a matter of law, in that issues with regard to responsibility for certain costs may be debatable. See art. V, § 14(c), Fla. Const. (2004) (providing that "[n]o county or municipality, except as provided in this subsection, shall be required to provide any funding for the state courts system, state attorneys' offices, public defenders' offices, court-appointed counsel or the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts performing court-related functions"); art. XII, § 25(b), Fla. Const. (2003) (providing that Section 14 shall be fully effectuated by July 1, 2004);State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So. 2d 312, 316 (Fla. 1961) (finding that the remedy of mandamus cannot be used to establish a right; it can only be used to enforce a right that has already been clearly established).
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.