forprohibition , thEdEadlinEis “ asap ”
Appellate Practice Section
Continuedfrompage38
to challenge an order that was entered in the previous August denying his claim of self-defense immunity . The First DCA stayed Snow ’ s trial , which was scheduled to begin 13 days after the petition was filed , but the court ordered him to address the effect of his delay in filing the petition . Snow replied that the delay was reasonable because he hired counsel to file the petition within about a month of the trial court ’ s order , it took another two months to obtain a transcript , and his timeline for filing the petition “ generally follow [ ed ] the timeline for appeals .” Snow added that “ had there been additional timing rules , he certainly would have abided by them .” 8
The First DCA was unpersuaded . It explained that “[ w ] hile the rules of procedure set no deadline for a prohibition petition , Florida courts have long held that a petition for writ of prohibition , given its discretionary nature , may be denied if it has been unreasonably delayed .” 9
In support , it cited case law holding that the general “ timeliness rule ” in prohibition cases is “ that a petitioner must act ‘ as soon as practicable .’” 10 Finding that Snow had not complied with that requirement , it denied the petition as untimely . For good measure , it ruled that it would have denied the petition on the merits even without the delay . 11
The First DCA is not the only court to deny a prohibition petition as untimely . In 2018 , the Second DCA denied prohibition relief based on an even shorter threemonth delay . 12 Other kinds of extraordinary writ petitions without fixed deadlines , including for habeas corpus and mandamus , have likewise been denied on equitable grounds due to filing delays . 13 In short , even without any deadline in the rules of appellate procedure , such petitions do , in fact , have a deadline : ASAP ! n
1
English v . McCrary , 348 So . 2d 293 ( Fla . 1977 ).
2
Wolfe v . Newton , 310 So . 3d 1077 , 1081 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2020 ).
3
Cini v . Cabezas , 343 So . 3d 1282 , 1283 ( Fla . 3d DCA 2022 ).
4
Jefferson v . State , 264 So . 3d 1019 , 1023 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2018 ).
5
Fla . R . App . P . 9.100 ( c ).
6
Fla . R . App . P . 9.100 ( e ); see also Philip J . Padovano , Florida Appellate Practice § 30:9 ( 2022 ed .) ( noting that except as specified in rule 9.100 ( c ), original proceedings “ are not subject to jurisdictional time limits ”).
7
352 So . 3d 529 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2022 ).
8
Id . at 531-32 .
9
Id . at 534 .
10
Id . ( indirectly quoting People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement , Inc . v . Reynolds , 571 So . 2d 493 , 496 ( Fla . 1st DCA 1990 )).
11
Id . at 534-38 .
12
Lewis v . State , 251 So . 3d 310 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2018 ).
13
See Padovano at § 30:9 n . 6 ( collecting cases ).
Author : Jonathan S . Tannen – Office of the Attorney General
J u l - A u g 2 0 2 3 | H C B A l A W Y E R
3 9