Case Name: Hollis JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-10-17
Citations: 477 So. 2d 566
Docket Number: No. 64042
Parties: Hollis JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 477
Pages: 566–569

Head Matter:
Hollis JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 64042.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 17, 1985.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joan Fowler Rossin, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
McDonald, justice.
We have for review State v. Jones, 433 So.2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). By expressly stating that the state's unavailable appeal would be treated and allowed to be considered as a petition for writ of certiora-ri, the district court created conflict with State v. G.P., 429 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we quash Jones.
The state sought to appeal the dismissal of probation violation charges against Jones, which dismissal had been predicated on Jones' claims of double jeopardy, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The district court treated the appeal as a petition for certiorari and reversed the trial court's order. In State v. G.P., on the other hand, the district court held that certiorari review of circuit court judgments extends only to judgments rendered by the circuit courts in their appellate capacity. The question we have to answer, therefore, is whether an appellate court can afford review to the state by way of certiorari when the state has no statutory or other cognizable right to appeal the judgment sought to be reviewed.
We have recently considered that issue. In State v. C.C., 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985), we held that article V, section 4(b)(1) of the state constitution permits interlocutory review only in cases in which an appeal may be taken as a matter of right. Moreover, we approved State v. G.P. and held that no right of review by certiorari exists if no right of appeal exists. State v. G.P., 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985). The district court erred in the instant case, therefore, in reviewing by certiorari a case it could not review by appeal. We quash Jones and direct that the petition for writ of certiorari be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
BOYD, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion.
The question of whether the district court correctly found no appeal available to the state is not before us.