Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-2570 _____________________________ STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL R. JACKSON, Respondent. _____________________________ Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. February 12, 2020 PER CURIAM. The State of Florida petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court denying the State’s motion for production. We deny the petition. Certiorari relief is appropriate only when an order departs from the essential requirements of the law and causes material injury to the petitioner that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1987); Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So. 2d 1067, 1071–72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A writ of certiorari should be granted “only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla. 1983). Below, the State sought swabs of a fire extinguisher made by a DNA analyst hired by the defense as well as the identity of the analyst. The State theorizes that the fire extinguisher was used by the Respondent as a weapon in the commission of a crime. The fire extinguisher had been in the State’s possession for some time before it was transferred to the defense for analysis. The defense first sought to compel the State to conduct DNA testing on the fire extinguisher and only sought production of the fire extinguisher after the State refused to conduct its own testing. After the fire extinguisher was returned to the State, the State then sought production from the defense of the matters noted. The trial court denied the motion to compel production. Here, the State has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in so ruling. In fact, the trial court’s denial of relief is consistent with rule 3.220(d)(1)(B) and 3.220(g), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding a defendant’s discovery obligations for “material that is in the defendant’s possession or control” and establishing a work product privilege. None of the authorities cited to this court by the State are applicable, and thus, fail to establish a violation of a clearly established principle of law. Combs, 436 So. 2d at 96. Therefore, the petition is DENIED. MAKAR, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Petitioner. Ann E. Finnell of Finnell, McGuinness, Nezami & Andux, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondent. 2