Opinion
No. SC07-513.
May 25, 2007.
Lower Tribunal No. 1D05-985.
Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled 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, 152 Fla. 400, 403, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943) (stating that "mandamus cannot be maintained to control or direct the manner in which [a] 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).
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.