Title: Mathews v. Crews

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC13-870 
____________ 
 
CECIL MATHEWS, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
MICHAEL D. CREWS, etc., 
Respondent. 
 
[January 23, 2014] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Petitioner Cecil Mathews has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 
Court.  Although the Florida Constitution authorizes this Court to issue “writs of 
mandamus,” art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const., the basis for this Court to exercise this 
original extraordinary writ jurisdiction is extremely limited.  
We dismiss Mathews’ petition for writ of mandamus as unauthorized, as 
Mathews seeks to renew a time-barred and meritless challenge to his criminal 
conviction for second-degree murder on the basis that the assistant state attorney 
who signed the 2005 information and 2006 indictment was not authorized to do so 
because he lacked the statutorily required oath.  We also take this opportunity to 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
clarify that mandamus is not the proper vehicle to seek review of an allegedly 
erroneous decision by a lower court and cannot be used to circumvent the 
constitutional restrictions on this Court’s jurisdiction to review lower court 
decisions.  In the future, when it is clear from the face of the petition that such 
relief is sought, as in this case, we will dismiss the petition as unauthorized. 
FACTS 
Mathews is an inmate serving prison time in state custody.  In a previous 
habeas corpus proceeding in the First District Court of Appeal (Case No. 1D13-
0103), Mathews sought immediate release from incarceration on the basis that the 
assistant state attorney who had signed the information and indictment in his 
underlying criminal case, in which Mathews was charged with second-degree 
murder, was not authorized to sign informations and indictments because he did 
not have an oath on file, as required by section 27.181, Florida Statutes.  The 
criminal charges in Mathews’ case apparently stem from a December 2005 
incident.  The information was signed on December 30, 2005, and the indictment 
was signed in April 2006.   
The First District denied Mathews’ habeas petition in an unelaborated per 
curiam decision with only a citation to Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).  
Mathews v. Crews, 109 So. 3d 824, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).  In Baker, this Court 
held that petitions for writs of habeas corpus in non-capital cases cannot be used to 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
obtain relief as to claims that are time-barred under the Florida Rules of Criminal 
Procedure.    
Mathews then filed a petition in this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus 
directed against the First District.  He argues that he provided the First District 
with “evidence that cannot be refuted that proves the information and indictment in 
his case was [sic] signed by an unauthorized person.”  Mathews asks this Court to 
compel the First District to carry out its “legal ministerial duty” to grant him 
habeas corpus relief in the form of “immediate release” from incarceration. 
ANALYSIS 
 
It is well-settled that mandamus is neither the appropriate vehicle to seek 
review of an allegedly erroneous decision by another court, nor is it the proper 
vehicle to mandate the doing or undoing of a discretionary act.  Migliore v. City of 
Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 
1983).  Further, mandamus cannot be used to control or direct the manner in which 
another court shall act in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.  State ex rel. N. St. 
Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943).   
Although a court may use its mandamus authority to compel a lower court to 
act in the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction, it cannot direct how the lower court 
should act.  Id.  If the action of a lower court is erroneous, a litigant may be able to 
obtain relief by seeking a review on appeal; or, if the lower court is a district court 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
of appeal, the litigant may be able to seek discretionary review in this Court, 
pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution.  However, the 
litigant may not obtain review of the lower court’s decision through filing a 
petition for a writ of mandamus.  See id.; Foley v. State, 969 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 
2007) (stating that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review unelaborated 
denials from the district courts of appeal that merely cite to a case not pending 
review in this Court, and that extraordinary writ petitions cannot be used to 
circumvent the method upon which review is sought in this Court).  This Court has 
long explained that the extraordinary writ procedure is not a substitute for the 
appeal or discretionary review process.  See Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 
477, 478 (Fla. 1975). 
 
In this mandamus proceeding, Mathews seeks review of the First District’s 
decision denying habeas corpus relief in case number 1D13-0103 based on this 
Court’s decision in Baker.  Mathews, 109 So. 3d at 825.  Specifically, the First 
District, in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, denied Mathews’ petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus, properly relying on precedent of this Court.  See id.  
Through the filing of his petition for a writ of mandamus, Mathews asks this Court 
to compel the First District to grant him relief from his time-barred challenge to his 
criminal conviction and issue a writ of habeas corpus directing his immediate 
release from incarceration.  However, mandamus is simply not available to review 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
an allegedly erroneous judicial decision and to compel a lower court to release an 
inmate from custody based on a time-barred and meritless claim that the assistant 
state attorney who signed the information and indictment in his underlying 
criminal case did not have an oath on file.   
In addition, if Mathews had sought to invoke this Court’s discretionary 
jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, to review 
the First District’s decision, which denied his habeas petition and contained only a 
citation to a case not pending review in this Court without providing any other 
facts, this Court would have dismissed the petition for discretionary review based 
on lack of jurisdiction.  See Gandy v. State, 846 So. 2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 2003).  
This Court would likewise have dismissed the petition for discretionary review if 
the First District’s decision had been in the form of an unelaborated per curiam 
dismissal of Mathews’ habeas petition, rather than a denial.  See Wells v. State, 
No. SC13-1346, slip. op. at 6-7 (Fla. Jan. 16, 2014).    
We will not tolerate a litigant’s misuse of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction 
to attempt to do what cannot be done through our discretionary jurisdiction set 
forth in article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution.  In recent years, this 
Court has received numerous mandamus petitions attempting to utilize our 
extraordinary writ jurisdiction for time-barred and often frivolous claims.  The vast 
majority of these petitions have been filed in this Court by pro se inmates renewing 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
time-barred challenges to their criminal convictions.  Many of the claims asserted 
demonstrate that these inmates misapprehend the proper use of the writ of 
mandamus.  Mandamus is a “narrow, extraordinary writ” used to compel the 
performance of a clear legal duty when there is no other adequate remedy 
available.  See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000); Sica v. Singletary, 
714 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).   
We take this opportunity to caution all litigants that the writ of mandamus 
cannot be used to review an allegedly erroneous judicial decision.  Moreover, 
mandamus or other writs cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional 
restrictions on this Court’s jurisdiction to review certain types of district court of 
appeal decisions by extraordinary writ.  See Persaud v. State, 838 So. 2d 529, 533 
(Fla. 2003) (holding that a litigant may not obtain review through filing an 
extraordinary writ petition of a per curiam decision of a district court of appeal that 
merely cites to a case not pending review in this Court, or to a statute or rule of 
procedure); Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974, 978 (Fla. 2002) (holding that a 
litigant may not obtain review through filing an extraordinary writ petition of a per 
curiam denial of relief, issued by a district court of appeal without opinion or 
explanation, whether in opinion form or by way of unpublished order); Grate v. 
State, 750 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1999) (holding that a litigant may not obtain 
review through filing an extraordinary writ petition of a per curiam decision of a 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
district court of appeal rendered without opinion).  To the extent that a writ of 
mandamus is sought to review an allegedly erroneous decision of a lower court, the 
petition for writ of mandamus will be dismissed as unauthorized, and repeated 
attempts to seek relief through filing petitions for such writs will subject the 
litigant to the imposition of sanctions. 
CONCLUSION 
Consistent with the analysis in this opinion, we dismiss Mathews’ petition 
for writ of mandamus because it is clear from the face of his petition that the 
petition seeks review of the First District’s decision to deny habeas corpus relief 
for a time-barred and meritless challenge to his criminal conviction, which is an 
unauthorized use of the writ of mandamus.  No motion for rehearing or 
clarification will be entertained.  See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d). 
It is so ordered. 
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur.  
 
Original Proceedings – Mandamus 
 
Cecil Mathews, pro se, Miami, Florida,  
 
 
for Petitioner