Wells v. State - 132 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 2014)

Rule:

The federal Supreme Court lacks discretionary review jurisdiction over the following four types of cases: (1) a per curiam affirmance rendered without written opinion; (2) a per curiam affirmance with a citation to (i) a case not pending review or a case that has not been quashed or reversed by this Court, (ii) a rule of procedure, or (iii) a statute; (3) a per curiam or other unelaborated denial of relief rendered without written opinion; and (4) a per curiam or other unelaborated denial of relief with a citation to (i) a case not pending review or a case that has not been quashed or reversed by this Court, (ii) a rule of procedure, or (iii) a statute.

Facts:

Petitioner Arrington R. Wells has filed a notice to invoke this Court's discretionary jurisdiction, pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution. Wells seeks review of an unelaborated per curiam decision of the First District Court of Appeal, dismissing his petition to invoke the First District's all writs jurisdiction on the authority of Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004), and Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2000). Wells alleges that the First District's decision expressly and directly conflicts with numerous other district court decisions regarding illegal sentences. The district court dismissed the petition in a per curiam decision.

Wells asserts in his jurisdictional filings before the Supreme Court of Florida that he is currently serving an illegally enhanced sentence as a Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) because the release date used to qualify Wells as a PRR originated from a temporary detention. He therefore contends that the First District erred in dismissing his all writs petition and that this Court should grant discretionary review to address the merits of his illegal sentence claim, alleging that an express and direct conflict exists between the First District's decision and several decisions of other district courts of appeal relating to the legality of PRR sentences.

Issue:

Does the federal Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the per curiam dismissal of Wells’ petition?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Applying this Court's decisions in Jenkins, Dodi Publishing, Stallworth, and Gandy to the notice to invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction filed in this case, the Court’s analysis in those cases as to unelaborated per curiam affirmances and denials is equally valid as to unelaborated per curiam dismissals. Thus, the Court does not have discretionary review jurisdiction over unelaborated per curiam dismissals from the district courts of appeal (1) that are issued without opinion or explanation, whether in opinion form or by way of unpublished order; or (2) that, like the First District's decision in Wells' case, merely cite to a case not pending review in, or not quashed or reversed by, this Court, or to a statute or rule of procedure, and do not contain any discussion of the facts in the case such that it could be said that the district court "expressly addresse[d] a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself."