REIBLICH v. INCH (2021)

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.

Per Curiam.

B.L. Thomas, Kelsey, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.