DANIELLE ELIZABETH HITCHMAN v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 21-1154

Danielle Hitchman was charged with two counts of battery and one count of criminal mischief (misdemeanors) and entered a negotiated no-contest plea with a withhold of adjudication and one year of reporting probation.
Midway through the plea colloquy, at the prosecutor's and probation officer's urging, the county court ordered Hitchman to submit to fingerprinting as a condition of probation.
Hitchman formally objected, arguing the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in compelling fingerprint exemplars.
The county court overruled the objection and ordered compliance within a fixed time; Hitchman filed a petition for writ of prohibition to restrain enforcement of the fingerprint order.
The court examined statutory authority for fingerprint collection (Florida's criminal records statute and administrative rule requiring biometric submissions for felony and misdemeanor arrestees) and concluded those provisions, together with the county court's statutory power to impose probation, authorized the order.
The writ of prohibition was denied because the county court had jurisdiction and the order did not exceed judicial authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering fingerprinting as a condition of probation	Hitchman: court lacked authority; statutory/regulatory scheme limits collection and a withhold of adjudication precludes the court from compelling exemplars	State/County court: county courts have statutory power to impose probation and set its terms; fingerprint statutes/rules require collection from misdemeanant arrestees	Denied — county court had jurisdiction and could order fingerprinting as a probation condition
Whether a writ of prohibition was an appropriate remedy to block the fingerprint order	Hitchman: prohibition necessary to prevent unlawful judicial act and no adequate remedy at law	State: prohibition unavailable because the order was within the court's jurisdiction (prohibition only for acts in excess of jurisdiction)	Denied — prohibition does not lie where a tribunal acts within its jurisdiction; remedy not available

Ex parte Fassett, 142 U.S. 479 (1892) (describes prohibition as remedy to restrain unlawful exercise of judicial functions)
Com. Bank of Okeechobee v. Proctor, 349 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (characterizes the writ of prohibition as extraordinary and narrow)
English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (prohibition appropriate only to forestall present injury where no adequate legal remedy exists)
Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992) (distinguishes acts in excess of jurisdiction from erroneous exercises of jurisdiction; limits use of prohibition)
Dodd Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (addresses jurisdictional bounds for issuance of extraordinary writs after statutory changes)