The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Review Per Curiam Decisions Regardless of How a Petition Is Styled
In Grate v. State, 750 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1999), the court concluded that "regardless of how a petition seeking review of a district court decision is styled, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions rendered without opinion and this Court's holding in Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1980) cannot be circumvented simply by seeking relief by filing an extraordinary writ petition."
The court held, therefore, "that those provisions of the Florida Constitution governing this Court's jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs may not be used to seek review of an appellate court decision issued without a written opinion." Grate, 750 So.2d at 626.
In Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2002), we recently summarized the facts upon which the decision in Grate was based:
In Grate, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which sought review of an affirmance by the Third District, issued without opinion, of a trial court order denying the petitioner's motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.
In his petition, petitioner Grate alleged that the district court's decision in his case was inconsistent with an opinion of this Court, and he asserted that he had no avenue available to him for seeking review of the district court's decision other than a petition for an extraordinary writ, because the district court had not provided any form of written opinion supporting its per curiam affirmance.
After discussing the decisions in both Jenkins and St. Paul [Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1980)], this Court concluded that it was without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner Grate's petition . . . .827 So.2d at 978.