State of Florida v. Steven Pietrasiuk , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12562 ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-5322
STEVEN PIETRASIUK,
Respondent.
___________________________/
Opinion filed August 18, 2016.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The State petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court’s
reversal of the county court’s denial of respondent’s Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850 motion.
We deny the State’s petition for writ of certiorari, as the State failed to establish
a departure from the clearly established principles of law. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344, 355-56 (Fla. 2012).
We note, however, that the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari does not
necessarily connote agreement with the circuit court’s conclusion. Rather, this court is
bound by the limited standard of review of second-tier certiorari and, though we may
find the circuit court’s conclusion was erroneous, erroneous conclusions do not amount
to departures from the essential requirements of the law remediable by certiorari.
Custer Med. Ctr. V. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1093 (Fla. 2010); see also
Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000) (“[T]he departure from the
essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is
something more than a simple legal error”).
As such, we DENY the State’s petition for writ of certiorari.
ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., CONCUR; WINOKUR, J., CONCURS WITH
OPINION.
2
WINOKUR, J., concurring.
“A decision made according to the form of law and the rules prescribed for
rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as
applied to the facts, is not an illegal or irregular act or proceeding remediable by
certiorari.” Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 1995)
(quoting Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523, 526-27 (1882)). If this case were
an appeal from the circuit court decision, I would reverse the decision as a
misapplication of Edenfield v. State, 45 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and the
requirements of Rule 3.111(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However,
applying the Heggs standard, I concur in the majority opinion that certiorari is not
warranted in this case.
3