¶1Upon the conclusion that there was plainly no “manifest necessity” to justify the trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial after the jury had been sworn below, see Corneiro v. Solomon, 450 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. McNeil, 362 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978),
¶2. The state relies on Edwards v. State, 336 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). We distinguish the case on its facts without endorsing or repudiating its holding.
¶3. We are sure that the issuance of the formal writ will not be required.