122 So. 3d 400
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Victim Stephen Barnett was named in an information charging William Blane with fraud and grand theft in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit; the original State Attorney recused and the Governor reassigned the case to the Fifteenth Circuit.
- After limited activity and a docket call setting, the Fifteenth Circuit State Attorney’s office filed a nolle prosequi dismissing all counts against Blane; Barnett alleges he received no notice before the nolle prosse was filed.
- Barnett met with assistant state attorneys four days after the nolle prosse and then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for writs (mandamus, quo warranto, and/or all writs) to abate the nolle prosse and compel appointment of a different prosecutor.
- The Supreme Court transferred the petition to the Nineteenth Circuit, which dismissed Barnett’s petition; Barnett appealed.
- The district court reviewed the dismissal de novo and analyzed whether Article I, Section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution (victim’s right to be informed, present, and heard at crucial stages) entitles a victim to notice or a hearing before a prosecutor files or discontinues charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prosecutor’s charging or nolle prosequi decision is a “stage” of criminal proceedings under Art. I, §16(b) | Barnett: §16(b) requires notice/opportunity to be heard before dismissal of an information | State: Charging and nolle decisions are executive prosecutorial discretion, not judicial stages subject to §16(b) | Held: Charging/nolle prosse is not a “stage” under §16(b); victim has no constitutional right to notice/hearing before prosecutor’s discretionary charging or dismissal decision |
| Whether mandamus is available to compel abatement of a nolle prosse | Barnett: Mandamus can compel relief because rights under §16(b) were violated | State: Prosecutorial discretion is not a ministerial act; mandamus inappropriate | Held: Mandamus denied — Barnett failed to show a clear legal right or that the State had a ministerial duty to act |
| Whether quo warranto applies to challenge a state attorney’s nolle prosequi | Barnett: Quo warranto appropriate to prevent improper exercise of state power | State: State attorney lawfully has power to nolle prosse | Held: Quo warranto inapplicable because the state attorney lawfully possesses nolle prosse power |
| Whether the all-writs provision supplies relief | Barnett: All writs could be used to abate the nolle prosse | State: All-writs cannot override separation of powers or confer independent jurisdictional basis | Held: All-writs provision does not provide relief here; it cannot be used to intrude on prosecutorial discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Ellis, 989 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (de novo review of dismissal of mandamus petitions)
- Mazer v. Orange Cnty., 811 So.2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (de novo review principles)
- Pleus v. Crist, 14 So.3d 941 (Fla. 2009) (mandamus requirements: clear legal right, indisputable duty, no adequate remedy)
- Huff v. State, 813 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2000) (mandamus standard cited)
- Lewis v. Leon Cnty., 73 So.3d 151 (Fla. 2011) (constitutional interpretation principles)
- Crist v. Fla. Ass’n of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc., 978 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2008) (constitutional construction rules)
- Cain v. State, 381 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 1980) (prosecutorial discretion as incident of separation of powers)
- State v. Brosky, 79 So.3d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (decision to prosecute or dismiss is sole province of the State)
- State v. R.J., 763 So.2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (nolle prosequi is within prosecutorial discretion)
- Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541 (Fla. 2005) (limits on all-writs provision and its role in furthering ultimate jurisdiction)