SEME v. OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Joseph SEME, Appellant, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D24-2241

Decided: August 13, 2025

Before EMAS, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.

Joseph Seme, in proper person. Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Sonali N. Desai, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee the State of Florida.

Affirmed. See State ex rel. Ostroff v. Pearson, 61 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 1952) (“It is well-established fundamental principle of the law of mandamus that the writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator.”); Skeen v. D'Alessandro, 681 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“There was no evidence, presented or proffered, that the document sought by the mandamus petition existed at the time of the hearing. Therefore, a writ ordering its production would be unavailing. Accordingly, we affirm.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network