Title: Jair Ventura Romero v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
____________
No. SC02-1795
____________
JAIR VENTURA ROMERO,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[April 1, 2004]
PARIENTE, J.
The petitioner, Jair Romero, has filed a motion for reinstatement of a notice
seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.  Romero asserts that
there is express and direct conflict between the Third District Court of Appeal
decision in Romero v. State, 820 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), and multiple
decisions from the First, Second, and Fourth District Courts of Appeal.  Before we
can determine whether we will exercise our discretion to accept this case for
review under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, we must first
determine whether the notice was timely filed.  For the reasons expressed below,
1.  Rule 9.120 provides in pertinent part:  "The jurisdiction of the supreme
court described in rule 9.030(a)(2)(A) shall be invoked by filing 2 copies of a
notice, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the
district court of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed."
Fla. R. App. P. 9.120(b).
-2-
we conclude that the notice was timely filed.
FACTS
Romero filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the Third District Court of
Appeal.  See Romero, 820 So. 2d at 947.  The Third District denied Romero's
petition on April 10, 2002, and he subsequently filed a motion for rehearing en
banc, which was accepted and ultimately denied by the Third District on July 12,
2002.  See Romero v. State, No. 3D01-3582 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2002).  At the
time the motion for rehearing en banc was filed, Romero failed to simultaneously
file a motion for rehearing.  On August 9, 2002, within thirty days of the rendition
of the order denying his motion for rehearing en banc, Romero filed a notice to
invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.  However, on August 15, 2002,
this Court dismissed Romero's case, explaining that his notice had not been timely
filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.120.1  This determination
was based on this Court's decision in State v. Kilpatrick, 420 So. 2d 868, 868 (Fla.
1982), that where a motion for rehearing en banc is filed without a motion for
rehearing, "the time for petitioning this Court [is] not tolled because the separately
-3-
filed motion for en banc review [is] a nonallowable motion under [Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure] 9.331 and [is] in fact a nullity."  Romero's motion for
reinstatement of his notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction followed.
ANALYSIS
Under rule 9.120, a party has thirty days following the rendition of a
decision by the district court in which to file a notice seeking to invoke the
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.  This time period is tolled, however, if the
petitioner has timely filed a motion for rehearing in the district court.  See Fla. R.
App. P. 9.020(h) (providing that a timely filed motion for rehearing tolls date of
rendition of a final order).  
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) establishes both the time
period for filing a motion for rehearing and the requirements concerning the
content of such a motion:
A motion for rehearing . . . may be filed within 15 days of an
order or within such other time set by the court.  A motion for
rehearing shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that, in
the opinion of the movant, the court has overlooked or
misapprehended in its decision, and shall not present issues not
previously raised in the proceeding.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331(d), which governs motions for
rehearing en banc, states that "a party may move for an en banc rehearing solely on
the grounds that the case is of exceptional importance or that such consideration is
2.  Rule 9.040(d) states that 
the court may permit any part of the proceeding to be amended so that
it may be disposed of on the merits.  In the absence of amendment,
-4-
necessary to maintain uniformity in the court's decisions."  Fla. R. App. P.
9.331(d)(1).  Rule 9.331(d) also requires that a motion for rehearing en banc be
filed "in conjunction with the motion for rehearing."  Id. 
In this case, Romero did not file his motion for rehearing en banc in
conjunction with a motion for rehearing.  Nevertheless, the Third District
considered the merits of Romero's motion.  In fact, it is the Third District's policy
to dispose of motions for rehearing en banc on the merits even when they are not
filed with an accompanying motion for rehearing.  The Third District's Manual of
Internal Operating Procedures provides:
When a motion for rehearing en banc is filed unaccompanied by a
motion for rehearing, the motion for rehearing en banc will be treated
as to include a motion for rehearing.  It will then be ruled upon by the
panel with the en banc request to be noted or ruled upon by the court.
(Emphasis supplied.)
By treating motions for rehearing en banc as including motions for
rehearing, the Third District adheres to the spirit of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.040(d), which is to "disregard any procedural error or defect that does
not adversely affect the substantial rights of the parties."2  However, because the
the court may disregard any procedural error or defect that does not
adversely affect the substantial rights of the parties.
3.  The Appellate Court Rules Committee has unanimously approved a
proposed amendment to rule 9.331(d) that would remove the requirement that a
motion for rehearing en banc be filed in conjunction with a motion for rehearing. 
We request that the Board of Governors expedite its consideration of this rule
amendment so that the Court can consider the proposal in conjunction with the
current two-year rule amendment cycle. 
-5-
Third District's order denying Romero's motion referred only to a motion for
rehearing en banc, this Court initially dismissed Romero's notice to invoke
discretionary jurisdiction as untimely based on the reasoning of Kilpatrick.  
After clarifying that the Third District, pursuant to its own internal rules,
treated Romero's motion as having included a motion for rehearing, we conclude
that Romero's notice in this Court was timely filed.  Where, as here, an appellate
court accepts a motion for rehearing en banc, treats the motion as having included
a motion for rehearing, and rules on the merits of the motion, the time for filing a
notice in this Court is tolled.3  Accordingly, we grant Romero's motion to reinstate
his notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction as timely filed and recede from
Kilpatrick to the extent it is inconsistent with this decision.  However, having
evaluated the jurisdictional briefs, we conclude that there is no basis to accept
review of Romero's case and we therefore deny the petition for review.
It is so ordered. 
-6-
ANSTEAD, C.J., and QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
WELLS and LEWIS, JJ., concur in result only.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct
Conflict
Third District - Case No. 3D01-3582
Oscar Arroyave, Coconut Grove, Florida,
for Petitioner
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand and Douglas J.
Glaid, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent