Opinion ID: 1138281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: consistency in application

Text: It has been correctly noted that despite the announcement of a narrow standard of review, the scope of substantive review by certiorari actually applied was often, for all practical purposes, fully as broad as review by appeal. William H. Rogers & Lewis Rhea Baxter, Certiorari in Florida, 4 U.Fla.L.Rev. 477, 498, 500 n. 90 (1951). [5] This tendency was so apparent that the discussion in Florida Jurisprudence noted that in many certiorari cases it may appear that an error on which the reviewing court questions the lower court's judgment is no more fundamental or in violation of an essential requirement of the law than what otherwise would be reversible error on appeal. Haddad, supra, at 221 n. 113. [6] Throughout the years, Florida courts have also used many terms interchangeably to describe a departure from the essential requirements of law. [7] Beginning in the early 1960's, however, a more consistent practice seemed to emerge of restricting the scope of review so that the reality of the extent of review on certiorari was to a large degree commensurate with the rhetoric of limited review. Haddad, supra, at 221 (footnote omitted). [8] Despite this all over the waterfront picture, some opinions should be noted for their tight and lucid language in capturing the essence of the appropriate use of the writ. In State v. Smith, 118 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), Judge Wigginton explained: Certiorari is a common-law writ which issues in the sound judicial discretion of the court to an inferior court, not to take the place of an appeal, but to cause the entire record of the inferior court to be brought up in order that it may be determined from the face thereof whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to the essential requirements of law. Confined to its legitimate scope, the writ may issue within the court's discretion to correct the procedure of courts wherein they have not observed those requirements of the law which are deemed to be essential to the administration of justice... . Failure to observe the essential requirements of law means failure to accord due process of law within the contemplation of the Constitution, or the commission of an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the judgment and render it void. ... It seems to be the settled law of this state that the duty of a court to apply to admitted facts a correct principle of law is such a fundamental and essential element of the judicial process that a litigant cannot be said to have had the remedy by due course of law [guaranteed by the Florida Constitution], if the judge fails or refuses to perform that duty. Id. at 795 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). In 1985, Chief Justice Boyd also captured the essence of the standard: The required departure from the essential requirements of law means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. The writ of certiorari properly issues to correct essential illegality but not legal error. Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1985) (Boyd, C.J., concurring specially).