Joseph Seme v. Office of the State Attorney, Etc.

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 13, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2241 Lower Tribunal No. F99-1602C ________________

Joseph Seme, Appellant,

vs.

Office of the State Attorney, etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge.

Joseph Seme, in proper person.

Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Sonali N. Desai, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee the State of Florida.

Before EMAS, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State ex rel. Ostroff v. Pearson, 61 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla.

1952) (“It is well-established fundamental principle of the law of mandamus

that the writ will never be granted in cases when, if issued, it would prove

unavailing, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or

would be without beneficial results and fruitless to the relator.”); Skeen v.

D'Alessandro, 681 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“There was no

evidence, presented or proffered, that the document sought by the

mandamus petition existed at the time of the hearing. Therefore, a writ

ordering its production would be unavailing. Accordingly, we affirm.”).