BARNES v. STATE (2022)

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an oral ruling finding him competent to proceed, among other remedies. We dismiss the petition because we cannot review an oral ruling by certiorari. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(1) (noting that a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed within thirty days of “rendition of the order to be reviewed”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i) (noting that “[a]n order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal”); see also Holt for Thirteenth Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cnty. v. Keetley, 250 So. 3d 206, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“Absent a signed, written order, our certiorari jurisdiction may not be invoked”).

Even if the order Petitioner seeks to quash was signed, written and filed, we would dismiss the petition because Petitioner has failed to allege irreparable harm. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344, 351 (Fla. 2012) (holding that a court does not have certiorari jurisdiction to review non-final orders unless there is “material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal, otherwise termed as irreparable harm”).^*

Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Petitioner cites three cases to demonstrate that “[c]ertiorari review is appropriate to review trial court orders that impact competency proceedings.” The cited cases either do not involve certiorari, or are otherwise distinguishable as they involve different proceedings.

Per Curiam.

Winokur, Nordby, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.