RYAN JUSTIN WILDER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's denial of a defense motion for continuance in a criminal case is not subject to review by writ of certiorari but rather by plenary appeal.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed on plenary appeal under an abuse of discretion standard, not by writ of certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because certiorari is an extraordinary writ, "the standard of review governing a petition for certiorari is much higher than the standard governing an appeal of right."”
Court explaining why certiorari is not the appropriate vehicle for reviewing continuance denials.
Wilder sought a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order denying his motion for continuance in a first-degree murder trial.…
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 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 23, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-2230 Lower Tribunal No. 17-CF-190-A-M
Ryan Justin Wilder, Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida, Respondent.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James Morgan, Judge.
Law Offices of Hal Schuhmacher, and Hal Schuhmacher; Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., and Michael Ufferman (Tallahassee), for petitioner.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Jason Michael Ross, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and REBULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petition dismissed. See Smith v. State, 187 So. 2d 61, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (denying petition for writ of certiorari which sought review of an order denying a defense motion for continuance in a first-degree murder trial where any error can be reviewed on plenary appeal); see also Surratt v. State, 407 So. 3d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (on plenary appeal reversing denial of a defense continuance motion noting "the decision to grant a motion for continuance is within the circuit court's discretion, and the denial of such a motion should not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion which appears clearly in the record.") (cleaned up); Valencia v. PennyMac Holdings, LLC, 317 So. 3d 178, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) ("Because certiorari is an extraordinary writ, “the standard of review governing a petition for certiorari is much higher than the standard governing an appeal of right.") (cleaned up); Rocha v. Acevedo, 438 So. 3d 332, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (departure from the essential requirements of law requires something far beyond legal error it “means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.") (cleaned up).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Earnest Donald Smith v. State, 187 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Valencia v. Pennymac Holdings, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)