Case ID: so3d_255/html/0996-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lauri BURRIS, Gregory F. Burris, Douglas O. Rowe, Ronald E. Brown, Jr., Jacob Chapman, and Melissa Burris, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D17-4536
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    November 6, 2018
    Mitchell A. Stone, Jacksonville Beach, H. Franklin Robbins, Jr., Orlando, and Steven G. Mason, Altamonte Springs, for Petitioners.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
    ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
   Per Curiam.

We grant the motion for clarification. Our prior opinion is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place:

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. As to the application of chapter 499, Florida Statutes (2015), Petitioners have not shown that the trial court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. See Scott v. Francati , 214 So.3d 742, 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (noting that "[p]rohibition is an extraordinary writ by which a superior court may prevent an inferior court ... from acting outside its jurisdiction" (quoting Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc. , 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla. 1992) ) ). Going forward in the trial court, it will be the State's burden to prove its charges that the substances allegedly misbranded by the Petitioners were drugs for purposes of chapter 499. See § 499.003(18), Fla. Stat. (2015) (defining a "drug" as that term is used in Part I of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act).

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.