CONOVER v. STATE (2022)

In this petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks review of an order striking his motion to dismiss asserting a claim of immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes, as untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c). Mandamus does not lie to review a trial court's ruling for legal error or to compel the court to rule in a certain way. Smith v. Lambdin, 971 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). A petition for writ of certiorari would have been the proper vehicle to seek review of the trial court's ruling. See Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Rogers v. State, 301 So. 3d 1083, 1083-84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Casanova v. State, 335 So. 3d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Corbett v. State, No. 5D21-3166, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2022 WL 1509106, at *2 (Fla. 5th DCA May 13, 2022). However, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition as a petition for writ of certiorari because it was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the trial court's order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h), 9.100(c)(1); see also Decktight Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Petition dismissed.

Per Curiam.

Damoorgian, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.