Case Title: n Re: Redefinition of Appellate Districts and Certification of Need for Additional Appellate Judges

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC21-1543 
______________ 
 
IN RE:  REDEFINITION OF APPELLATE DISTRICTS AND  
CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL  
APPELLATE JUDGES. 
 
December 22, 2021 
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION 
 
PER CURIAM. 
I.  Background 
In In re Redefinition of Appellate Districts and Certification of 
Need for Additional Appellate Judges, 46 Fla. L. Weekly S355 (Fla. 
Nov. 24, 2021), this Court determined that a sixth appellate district 
should be created in Florida and that accompanying changes 
should be made to the existing boundaries of the First, Second, and 
Fifth districts.1  The Court also determined that six new appellate 
 
1.  Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in 
pertinent part: 
 
Determination of number of judges.—The 
supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for 
the determination of the need for additional judges except 
supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the 
 
- 2 - 
judgeships were needed for the continued effective operation of the 
newly aligned district courts of appeal—specifically one in the 
realigned Second District and five in the realigned Fifth District.  
The Court made the determinations consistent with the final 
report and recommendations of a Court-appointed assessment 
committee charged with evaluating the necessity for increasing, 
decreasing, or redefining the appellate districts.2  Among other 
things, the District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction 
Assessment Committee recommended that no existing district court 
judge’s position be decertified while that judge is in office and that 
 
number of judges and for increasing, decreasing or 
redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits.  If the 
supreme court finds that a need exists for increasing or 
decreasing the number of judges or increasing, 
decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial 
circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the 
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and 
recommendations concerning such need. 
2.  District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction 
Assessment Committee Final Report and Recommendations 
https://www.flcourts.org/DCA-Committee-Report.  See also In re 
District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment 
Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC21-13 (May 6, 2021). 
 
 
- 3 - 
no existing district court judge have to change residence in order to 
remain in office as a result of the realignment of districts. 
II.  Amended Certification of Additional Judges 
In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the 
State’s need for additional district court judges in fiscal year 
2022/2023 and to certify our “findings and recommendations 
concerning such need” to the Florida Legislature,3 this opinion 
amends the previously issued certification.  Based on recent 
changes in residency of judges, the Court hereby certifies the need 
for seven rather than six additional district court judgeships, 
bringing to 71 the total number of judges on the state’s district 
courts of appeal.  Under this revision, the seven judgeships are 
allocated as follows: three in the realigned Second District and four 
in the realigned Fifth District.  This assessment continues to be 
based on the assumption that each existing judge who resides 
within a county that was proposed for assignment to a new district 
court would be considered a judge of the new district court. 
 
3.  Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 4 - 
We further certify that the creation of seven district court 
judges, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, is necessary, 
and we recommend that the Legislature enact the applicable laws 
and appropriate funds so that the adjustments can be 
implemented. 
The Court makes no revisions to the previously certified 
alignment of the jurisdictional boundaries of the six appellate 
districts. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, and 
COURIEL, JJ., concur. 
GROSSHANS, J., concurs in result only. 
POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
POLSTON, J., dissenting. 
 
As I explained in my dissent to the majority’s November 24, 
2021 opinion, no additional district court of appeal judges are 
needed.  None.  Not six.  Not seven.  This revised certification makes 
my point.  It is based on where current judges live, not any objective 
basis of a need for more judges to do the work. 
Original Proceeding – Amended Certification of Need for Additional 
Appellate Judges 
 
 
- 5 - 
APPENDIX 
Amended District Court Need 
 
District  
District 
Court 
Certified 
Judges 
1 
0 
2 
3 
3 
0 
4 
0 
5 
4 
6 
0 
Total 
7