Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Steven PIETRASIUK, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-08-18
Citations: 197 So. 3d 640
Docket Number: No. 1D15-5322
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Steven PIETRASIUK, Respondent.
Judges: ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur; WINOKUR, J., concurs with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 197
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Steven PIETRASIUK, Respondent.
No. 1D15-5322.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 18, 2016.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The State petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court's reversal of the county court's denial of respondent's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860 motion.
We deny the State's petition for writ of certiorari, as the State failed to establish a departure from the clearly established principles of law. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So.3d 344, 356-56 (Fla.2012).
We note, however, that the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari does not necessarily connote agreement with the circuit court's conclusion. Rather, this court is bound by the limited standard of review of second-tier certiorari and, though we may find the circuit court's conclusion was erroneous, erroneous conclusions do not amount to departures from the essential requirements of the law remediable by certiorari. Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1093 (Fla.2010); see also Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000) ("[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error").
As such, we DENY the State's petition for -writ of certiorari.
ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur; WINOKUR, J., concurs with opinion.