Donald Otis Williams v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: August 29, 2019
• Docket: SC18-2081
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2019

CASE NO.: SC18-2081 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 352011CF000105AXXXXX DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

Petitioner has submitted what is styled an all writs petition, seeking to

compel the trial court to include him in certain proceedings and to rule on pending

motions, and related pleadings. This case is hereby transferred to the Fifth District

Court of Appeal for consideration as a mandamus proceeding. The transferee court

shall treat the petition and related pleadings as if it had been originally filed there

on the date it was filed in this Court. Any determination concerning the timeliness

of this appellate proceeding shall be made by the transferee court. Any

determination concerning whether a filing fee shall be applicable to this case shall

be made by the transferee court. Any and all pending motions in this case are

hereby deferred to the transferee court. Any future pleadings filed regarding this

case should be filed in the above-mentioned district court at 300 South Beach

Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result with an opinion. CASE NO.: SC18-2081 Page Two

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

LABARGA, J., concurring in result.

Based upon the unique facts and circumstances presented by this case, I

concur with the decision of the majority to transfer this matter to the Fifth District

Court of Appeal. However, I wish to emphasize that my decision in this specific

case should not be interpreted as a change in my view with respect to this Court’s

longstanding precedent governing our jurisdiction over capital cases. See State v.

Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 697 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 1997) (“[W]e now hold that

in addition to our appellate jurisdiction over sentences of death, we have exclusive

jurisdiction to review all types of collateral proceedings in death penalty cases.

This includes cases in which this Court has vacated a death sentence and

remanded for further penalty proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)).

A True Copy Test: CASE NO.: SC18-2081 Page Three

cd Served:

DOUGLAS T. SQUIRE DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS HON. MARK JAY HILL HON. GARY J. COONEY, CLERK HON. JOANNE P. SIMMONS, CLERK HUGH DEAN BASS, JR.