FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
v.
JONATTAN MANUEL ROBLES AND 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 lacks authority to compel the Department of Corrections to grant visitation privileges to an inmate, as such matters fall within DOC's lawful discretion and any order doing so constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[1] A nonparty to a legal proceeding lacks an adequate remedy by direct appeal, thus conferring appellate jurisdiction for a writ of certiorari.
[2] A trial court lacks the authority to enter an order compelling the Department of Corrections to allow visitation privileges to an incarcerated inmate.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[U]ltimately, the trial court's order usurped the authority of DOC to exercise its lawful discretion in these matters, and has thereby violated the separation of powers doctrine.”
The court cited precedent establishing that visitation matters must be left within DOC's discretion.
Robles, serving a life sentence for sex offenses, filed a motion through counsel for supervised visitation with his three minor children while incarce…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D22-77 LT Case No. 2018-CF-011960-A-O
JONATTAN MANUEL ROBLES AND STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents.
________________________________/
Opinion filed May 13, 2022
Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge.
Mark S. Urban, Deputy General Counsel, of Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
William R. Ponall, of Ponall Law, Maitland, for Respondent, Jonattan Manuel Robles.
No Appearance for Respondent, State of Florida.
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Department of Corrections (“DOC”) petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash an order that directs DOC to permit Respondent, Jonattan
Manuel Robles, to have supervised visitation with his three minor children while incarcerated in a State of Florida prison. Because the order departs from the essential requirements of law and DOC has no remedy on appeal,
we grant the petition.
Robles is serving a life sentence after being convicted of various sex offenses. In his criminal case, Robles, through counsel, filed a motion for visitation with his minor children. DOC, an interested nonparty, was not served with the motion. The trial court granted the motion two days later.
Thereafter, DOC timely filed this petition.
“We have jurisdiction because DOC’s nonparty status deprives it of an adequate remedy by direct appeal.” Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d
1147, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The trial court’s order constitutes a departure of the essential requirements of law because the trial court lacked the authority to enter an order compelling DOC to allow visitation privileges to an inmate. See Moore v. Peavey, 729 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“We agree with DOC that matters of visitation should be left within the discretion of DOC . . . . [U]ltimately, the trial court’s order usurped the authority of DOC to exercise its lawful discretion in these matters, and has thereby violated the separation of powers doctrine.”); see also Moore v. Perez, 756 So. 2d 1086,
1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (quashing order compelling DOC to allow visitation privileges to inmate in DOC custody).
We grant DOC’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the trial court.
PETITION GRANTED.
EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur. EVANDER, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
EVANDER, J., concurring specially. Case No. 5D22-77 LT Case No. 2018-CF-11960-A-O
I would also observe that the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law because DOC was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234,
1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (order quashed where DOC was not given notice of proceedings).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Singletary v. Lancy Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Moore v. Peavey, 729 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Moore v. Perez, 756 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)