Wheeler v. State
Citation | 296 So.3d 895 |
Decision Date | 11 June 2020 |
Docket Number | No. SC19-1916,SC19-1916 |
Parties | Jimmy Lee WHEELER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Jimmy Lee Wheeler, pro se, Crawfordville, Florida, for Petitioner
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and C. Suzanne Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent
Petitioner Jimmy Lee Wheeler has filed a "Notice of Appeal," which was treated as a notice to invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution. Wheeler seeks review of an unelaborated order from the Second District Court of Appeal, striking his brief as unauthorized. We dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Wheeler filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Second District Court of Appeal. On September 9, 2019, the district court issued an unelaborated order denying the petition. Wheeler then filed a motion for rehearing and an amended motion for rehearing, as well as an initial brief. On October 2, 2019, the Second District denied the amended motion for rehearing. On October 3, the district court issued an order striking the brief. The order states in full: "Petitioner's brief is stricken as unauthorized." Wheeler's notice specifically seeks the Court's review of the Second District's order "dated October 3, 2019."1
Each of the provisions in this section requires that the basis for jurisdiction be "expressed" in the district court's decision. Indeed, this Court has long held that it lacks jurisdiction to review unelaborated orders or opinions from the district courts of appeal that do not expressly address a question of law. In Florida Star v. B.J.F. , 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988), the Court considered the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Supreme Court:
Whether the Florida Supreme Court had jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution or otherwise, to hear Appellant's appeal [petition for review] in this cause from the Florida First District Court of Appeal?
Id. at 287 (footnote omitted) (bracketed language in original). The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that it has Id. at 288 (footnote omitted). In contrast, "[t]his Court does not ... have subject-matter jurisdiction over a district court opinion that fails to expressly address a question of law, such as opinions issued without opinion or citation." Id. at 288 n.3.
In Gandy v. State , 846 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2003), we reiterated our holding in Florida Star :
Id. at 1143-44 ( ).
In Tippens v. State , 897 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2005), we applied the principles in Florida Star to dismiss petitions seeking review of nonfinal orders from the district courts. The opinion in Tippens addressed three consolidated cases. In the first case, petitioner Robert Tippens sought review of an order that stated:
Id. at 1279. In the second case, petitioner Thomas Jurkowich sought review of an order that stated:
Id. And in the third case, petitioner Richard Walker sought review of an order that stated in full:
Id. As to each case, we concluded that the orders on review did not meet the standard in Florida Star , in that "the orders do not ‘contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests’ with regard to the contested rulings." Id. at 1281 (quoting Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCormack v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
......Therein, McCormack seeks reconsideration of the. Court's Order of Dismissal, ECF No. [19], denying his. petition as untimely. The State did not file a response. For. the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted, but. McCormack's Petition is denied. . . ... citation establishing a point of law upon which the decision. rests.” Wheeler v. State , 296 So.3d 895, 897. (Fla. 2020). . . Upon. closer examination of the Fourth DCA's affirmance ......
-
Papageorge v. State
...... See Resp. at 8. That is incorrect. As the Florida. Supreme Court has explained, that court “lacks. jurisdiction to review unelaborated orders or opinions from. the district courts of appeal that do not expressly address a. question of law.” Wheeler v. State, 296 So.3d. 895, 896 (Fla. 2020). In other words, Petitioner's futile. attempt to get the Florida Supreme Court to accept. jurisdiction of his appeal from the Fourth DCA was not. “properly filed” and did not toll any time under. § 2244(d)(2). See Bismark ......
-
Roberts v. State
...or that merely cites to an authority that is not a case pending review in, or reversed or quashed by, this Court. See Wheeler v. State, 296 So.3d 895 (Fla. 2020); v. State, 132 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 2014); Jackson v. State, 926 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2006); Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2003); ......
-
Sheikh v. City of Deltona
...or that merely cites to an authority that is not a case pending review in, or reversed or quashed by, this Court. See Wheeler v. State, 296 So.3d 895 (Fla. 2020); v. State, 132 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 2014); Jackson v. State, 926 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2006); Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2003); ......