Opinion ID: 2689218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Ordinarily, the constitutionality of a legislative act should be challenged by filing an action for declaratory judgment in circuit court. Moreau v. Lewis, 648 So. 2d 124, 126 (Fla. 1995). However, when a statute will adversely impact the functions of government to the extent that it requires an immediate determination of the constitutionality of the statute, we may consider a petition that challenges -4- the constitutionality of that statute pursuant to our mandamus authority. See, e.g., Allen v. Butterworth, 756 So. 2d 52, 54-55 (Fla. 2000); Moreau, 648 So. 2d at 126; Dickinson v. Stone, 251 So. 2d 268, 271 (Fla. 1971). We have previously stated that is our constitutional responsibility to ensure the death penalty is administered in a fair, consistent, and reliable manner, and have recognized that we have an administrative responsibility to minimize the delays inherent in the capital postconviction process. Arbelaez v. Butterworth, 738 So. 2d 326, 326-27 (Fla. 1999). Accordingly, because the challenged provisions of the Act amend and add several statutory provisions that attempt to “ensure that all appeals and postconviction actions in capital cases are resolved as soon as possible after the date a sentence of death is imposed in the circuit court,” and could potentially negatively impact our ability to ensure that the death penalty is administered in a fair, consistent, and reliable manner for the Petitioners and hundreds of additional death row inmates, we treat the Petitioners’ challenges to the constitutionally of the Act as a petition for writ of mandamus and exercise our discretion to accept jurisdiction. See Allen, 756 So. 2d at 54-55.