PER CURIAM
The appeal is without merit. The issue presented by the appellant concerns the validity of the Executive Department's clemency process. The contentions made by the appellant were rejected by this Court in Sullivan v. Askew, 348 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1977). See also Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 1548, 59 L.Ed.2d 796 (1979).
The motion for stay of execution is hereby denied, and the order of the trial court is affirmed.
ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
ENGLAND, C.J., and SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent with an opinion.
ENGLAND, Chief Justice, and SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, Justices, dissenting.
We dissent from the Court's affirmance of the trial court's order, its denial of a stay pending appeal, and its denial of Darden's motion for oral argument. We would grant a stay of execution for forty-eight hours, allow the parties oral argument and thereafter render a decision on an expedited basis.
Darden challenged the state's clemency proceeding in circuit court before a warrant was signed for his execution. The court had subject matter jurisdiction of the lawsuit and the trial judge entered an order dismissing Darden's complaint with prejudice. Darden is entitled to appellate review of that order. We disagree with our colleagues on the form which that review should take under the special circumstances of this case. That is, we would not decide the merits of the appeal without according Darden's counsel oral argument.
Sullivan v. Askew, 348 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1977).