MITCHELL W. REIBLICH
v.
MARK S. INCH, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mitchell Reiblich sought certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing his complaint challenging the legality of his judgment and sentence. The appellate court treated the petition as seeking plenary review and affirmed the dismissal because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the challenge to a judgment rendered in a different county.
Yes. The circuit court correctly dismissed the complaint because it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a challenge to a judgment rendered in a different county.
[1] A court should treat a petition seeking an improper appellate remedy as if the proper remedy had been sought.
[2] A court may treat a certiorari petition as an initial brief on the merits.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Reiblich's complaint challenged the legality of his judgment and sentence rendered by the circuit court in Sarasota County, and the trial court dismissed his complaint for want of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the jurisdictional defect that was the basis for dismissal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReiblich filed a complaint in Hamilton County Circuit Court challenging the legality of a judgment and sentence that had been rendered by the Sarasota…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plenary Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mitchell Reiblich seeks certiorari review of a final order rendered by the circuit court in Hamilton County. Reiblich’s complaint challenged the legality of his judgment and sentence rendered by the circuit court in Sarasota County, and the trial court dismissed his complaint for want of jurisdiction.
We treat the certiorari petition as seeking plenary appellate review of the final order, rather than seeking second-tier review under Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998). Cf. Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought; provided that it shall not be the responsibility of the court to seek the proper remedy.”). Still, after considering Mr. Reiblich’s argument addressed to the merits of the circuit court’s order, see Osborne v. Tucker, 80 So. 3d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating certiorari petition as initial brief), we find that he has not demonstrated a preliminary basis for relief. Cf. Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(h) (stating that the court may direct the filing of a response if “the petition demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief”). The circuit court correctly dismissed the complaint because it lacked jurisdiction. See Zuluaga v. Dep’t of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
DENIED.
B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Osborne v. Tucker, 80 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)