Opinion ID: 2490897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Because the two rephrased certified questions present issues of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo. Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2007). Legislative intent guides statutory analysis, and to discern that intent we must look first to the language of the statute and its plain meaning. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. P.E., 14 So.3d 228, 234 (Fla.2009). In this regard, legislative intent is determined primarily from the text of the statute. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Ryan, Inc. E., 974 So.2d 368, 374 (Fla.2008). As this Court has previously announced: When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent. In such instance, the statute's plain and ordinary meaning must control, unless this leads to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent. Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226, 1230-31 (Fla.2006) (citation omitted) (quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla.2005)). However, if the statutory intent is unclear from the plain language of the statute, then `we apply rules of statutory construction and explore legislative history to determine legislative intent.' Id. at 1231 (quoting BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Meeks, 863 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla. 2003)). Among the basic principles of statutory construction is that statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read together, or in pari materia. Fla. Dep't of State v. Martin, 916 So.2d 763, 768 (Fla.2005) (The doctrine of in pari materia is a principle of statutory construction that requires that statutes relating to the same subject or object be construed together to harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature's intent.).