White v. Moore, 1D02-3692.
Decision Date | 23 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 1D02-3692.,1D02-3692. |
Citation | 840 So.2d 275 |
Parties | Timothy E. WHITE, Appellant, v. Michael W. MOORE, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellant, pro se.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General; and Louis A. Vargas, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Having considered the appellant's response to this Court's order to show cause, dated November 15, 2002, the appeal of the circuit court's order entitled "Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum" is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's motion to consolidate is denied as moot.
The appellant has sought review of an order denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum. The appellant's petition below is essentially a motion for an inmate to appear at a hearing, which should not be confused with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum. See Black's Law Dictionary 715 (7th ed.1999). Therefore, the instant order does not constitute an end to the judicial labor in this case and is not appealable as a final order. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974)
.
Appellate jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders is limited to those orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Nonfinal orders that "concern venue" are one category of appealable nonfinal orders. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). The appellant argues that his petition sought a court order allowing him to appear at a hearing on a motion for change of venue, therefore the order denying the motion concerns venue and should be appealable. However, "[t]his rule enables a party to seek review of an adverse decision on venue...." Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Construction, Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Kerr Const., Inc. v. Peters Contracting, Inc., 767 So.2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). This rule does not extend to appeals of nonfinal orders where venue may be impacted by the order but the order itself does not concern venue. See Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
; Wetherington v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 661 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, the instant order denying appellant's petition does not concern venue within the meaning of Rule 9.130(a)(3)(A).
DISMISSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Hines v. State, Case No. 1D08-4655 (Fla. App. 3/25/2010), Case No. 1D08-4655.
-
Flores v. State, 4D15–3457
...filing a new motion to withdraw pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Walker , 203 So.3d at 192 ; McCray v. State , 840 So.2d at 275.Reversed and remanded .Damoorgian, Gerber and Forst, JJ., concur.--------Notes:1 Appellant was also sentenced to 441 days' imprisonment fo......
-
Armour v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N, 1D04-5248.
...Relief," entered on October 26, 2004, is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1); White v. Moore, 840 So.2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding nonfinal orders that impact venue but do not concern venue are not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Proced......