# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 20, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________
No. 3D22

- 1870 Lower Tribunal No. 21

- 10 AP

________________

Cristina Hernandez
, Petitioner,

vs.

City of Miami Code Enforcement Board
, Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Appellate Division, Lisa S. Walsh

, Daryl E. Trawick and Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge s

.
David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker , for petitioner.

Victoria M é ndez, City Attorney, and Kerri L. McNulty, Litig ation & Appeals Division Chief, and Marguerite C. Snyder, Assistant City Attorney

, for respondent.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 Upon consideration, the petition for second

- tier certiorari is denied.

See Custer Med. Ctr. v. U nited Auto. Ins. Co. , 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla.

2010) ( providing:

This Court has continually applied certain fundamental principles for the use of certiorari to review decisions rendered by the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity from the time common

- law certiorari jurisdiction was first recognized in 1855. See, e.g.

, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos , 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003); Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla.2000); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs

, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995); Combs v. State , 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983); Halliday v. Jacksonville & Alligator Plank Rd. Co. , 6 Fla. 304 (1855). We have consistently observed that “a s a case travels up the judicial ladder, review should consistently become narrower, not broader. ” Haines , 658 So. 2d at 530. Therefore, when a district court considers a petition for second

- tier ce rtiorari review, the “ inquiry is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process an whether the circuit court applied the correct law, ” or, as otherwise stated, departed from the essential requirements of law. Id .; see also Kaklamanos

, 843 So. 2d at 889

– 90

. The departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for granting a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error. See Kaklamanos , 843 So. 2d at 889 (citing Ivey , 774 So. 2d at 682). Rather, a district court should exercise its discretion to grant review only when the lower tribunal has violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice

. ) (footnote omitted).

See also Advanced Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr. Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co.

, 103 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that petitioner waived its3 claim of error i n second

- tier certiorari review where it failed to raise the error

as a basis for reversal in its appel late brief to the c ircuit court acting in an

appellate capacity ) ; Detournay v. City of Coral Gables , 127 So. 3d 869, 873

(Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ( reaffirming that “the City's discretion to file, prosecute,

abate, settle, or voluntarily dismiss a building and zoning enforcement action

is analogous to a prosecutor's discretion to file, prosecute, abate, settle, or

dismiss a criminal or civil lawsuit. The prosecutor's discretion in this regard

is a pure executive function that cannot be supervised by the courts, absent

the violation of a spe cific constitutional provision or law”) (citing Trianon Park

Condo

. Ass ’ n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah , 468 So. 2d 912, 922 (Fla.1985) ).