State v. Pettis
1988 WL 4367, 520 So.2d 250 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
District courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review non-final, non-appealable pretrial orders in criminal cases via common law certiorari, but this extraordinary writ is reserved for situations where a trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law and causes irreparable harm to the state.
Facts:
- George Pettis was charged with a drug offense.
- A police officer involved in the case was set to testify for the state.
- This officer had received five departmental reprimands during his former employment with a different police force.
- The most recent reprimand had occurred approximately three years before the current case.
- None of the reprimands involved Pettis or any individuals connected to his case.
- Pettis sought to question the officer about these past reprimands during the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida filed a pretrial motion in limine in the trial court to prevent defendant George Pettis from questioning a police officer about prior reprimands.
- The trial court denied the state's motion.
- The state sought review of the non-final order by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- Initially, the District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the trial court's order.
- Pettis filed a motion for rehearing, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under existing precedent.
- On rehearing, the District Court of Appeal withdrew its prior opinion and denied the petition for writ of certiorari, citing Jones v. State.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted review due to a direct and express conflict with a decision from another district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court of appeal have jurisdiction to review, by common law certiorari, a non-final pretrial order in a criminal case for which the state has no statutory right of appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
Yes, a district court of appeal has certiorari jurisdiction to review such orders. The court clarified that its prior decisions limiting certiorari review (e.g., Jones v. State) applied only to final orders of dismissal, not to non-final interlocutory orders. The court reasoned that without this remedy, the state could be irreparably harmed by an erroneous pretrial ruling; if the defendant is acquitted, double jeopardy prevents the state from appealing the erroneous ruling. However, while finding that the district court had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that the trial court's error in this specific case—permitting questioning about the reprimands—did not rise to the level of a 'departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice' required to grant the writ. Therefore, the denial of certiorari was the correct result, though for different reasons than those given by the appellate court on rehearing.
Concurring in result only - Overton, J.
Justice Overton agreed with the result but disagreed with broadening certiorari jurisdiction to review a non-final order. He argued that common law certiorari is historically a very limited remedy for issues of jurisdiction and procedural regularity, not for correcting mere legal error. He expressed concern that the majority's decision could be confusing and substantially extend the writ beyond its intended purpose. He suggested the proper solution would be to amend the appellate rules to explicitly grant the state a means of discretionary review, rather than stretching the common law writ of certiorari.
Dissenting - Shaw, J.
Justice Shaw agreed with the majority that certiorari review is available for non-appealable orders but dissented from its conclusion that the trial judge's error was not a departure from the essential requirements of law. He argued that a trial court's ruling that directly conflicts with established appellate court decisions, as this one did, is precisely the kind of error that constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. He believed the majority adopted an overly restrictive view and that this erroneous ruling was serious enough to warrant granting certiorari and quashing the trial court's order to ensure consistency and justice in the legal system.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the scope of the state's appellate remedies in criminal proceedings. It carves out a critical exception to the general rule that the state's right to appeal is strictly limited by statute, confirming that common law certiorari remains a viable, albeit limited, tool for reviewing prejudicial pretrial orders. The decision balances the need for judicial efficiency against the state's interest in preventing irreparable harm from erroneous rulings that could otherwise evade review due to double jeopardy principles. By setting a high bar for relief—'a departure from the essential requirements of law'—the Court ensured that this remedy would not open the floodgates to routine interlocutory challenges, reserving it for only the most serious errors.
