420 So.3d 1092
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2025Background
- Petitioner Francisco Peralta‑Mejia was charged in Florida with battery on a person 65+ and released on bond into ICE custody under a federal detainer asserting removability and a public‑safety risk.
- The State filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum seeking temporary transfer of petitioner from ICE custody to state custody to prosecute the pending felony.
- The circuit court granted the State’s petition but stayed formal relief to allow petitioner to seek a writ of prohibition from the appellate court.
- Peralta‑Mejia sought prohibition, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and that ordering transfer would prevent his release from ICE custody (a “Catch‑22”), leaving prohibition as his only remedy.
- The appellate court reviewed jurisdictional principles for prohibition, the constitutional/statutory authority of circuit courts to issue habeas writs, and the historical/common‑law basis for ad prosequendum writs.
- The court concluded the circuit court has authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and denied the petition for prohibition on the record presented.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Peralta‑Mejia) | State (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prohibition lies to prevent the circuit court from issuing a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum | Prohibition necessary because transfer would foreclose release from ICE and circuit court lacks jurisdiction | Circuit court has constitutional/statutory authority to issue habeas ad prosequendum and may order temporary custody | Denied — prohibition unavailable; circuit court authorized to issue writ |
| Whether issuance of habeas ad prosequendum to an immigration detainee is barred or geographically limited | Transfer would place petitioner in a Catch‑22 and ICE custody status precludes ad prosequendum use | Ad prosequendum has no geographic limitation and applies to immigration detainees; other transfer mechanisms may exist but do not displace writ | Denied — ad prosequendum subsumed within habeas corpus and may be used for immigration detainees |
| Whether prohibition can test correctness of lower court’s jurisdictional ruling where facts are controverted | Prohibition appropriate because immediate harm (loss of ICE release) and court lacks jurisdiction | Prohibition improper to resolve contested jurisdictional facts; lower court alone may determine jurisdiction | Denied — prohibition not proper to divest lower court where jurisdictional facts are for that court to decide |
| Whether habeas ad prosequendum is obsolete or displaced by other procedures (e.g., detainer/interstate agreements) | Argued that modern mechanisms make writ inappropriate | Writ remains viable; Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not govern immigration detainees | Denied — writ still available despite alternative tools |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Records & Tape Serv. v. Goldman, 502 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1986) (prohibition only to prevent acting outside jurisdiction)
- English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (prohibition not to correct erroneous exercise of jurisdiction)
- Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992) (limits on using prohibition to divest lower tribunal of jurisdiction)
- Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611 (1961) (habeas ad prosequendum used to secure prisoner for prosecution; no geographic limitation)
- United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978) (historic scope of habeas corpus includes ad prosequendum)
- Ridgeway v. United States, 558 F.2d 357 (6th Cir. 1977) (historic analysis of writs and their common‑law origins)
- Sumler v. State, 958 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (final circuit court habeas orders reviewable by appeal)