Opinion ID: 2742965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Jurisdiction of Florida District Courts of Appeal The Florida Constitution provides district courts with the authority to hear appeals from trial court final orders and to review interlocutory orders of trial courts as provided by the procedural rules. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. The constitution also allows district courts to issue writs of certiorari “necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const. 2. State v. Harris, 136 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1962). 3. State v. Wilson, 483 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). -5- Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030 (b)(1)-(3) more fully outlines the appellate and certiorari jurisdiction of our district courts of appeal and provides: (b) Jurisdiction of District Courts of Appeal. (1) Appeal Jurisdiction. District courts of appeal shall review, by appeal (A) final orders of trial courts, not directly reviewable by the supreme court or a circuit court, including county court final orders declaring invalid a state statute or provision of the state constitution; (B) non-final orders of circuit courts as prescribed by rule 9.130; (C) administrative action if provided by general law. (2) Certiorari Jurisdiction. The certiorari jurisdiction of district courts of appeal may be sought to review (A) non-final orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130; (B) final orders of circuit courts acting in their review capacity. (3) Original Jurisdiction. District courts of appeal may issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and common law certiorari, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction; or any judge thereof may issue writs of habeas corpus returnable before the court or any judge thereof, or before any circuit judge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030 (b)(1)-(3) (footnotes omitted). The jurisdictional dispute before the Second District centered on the parties’ disagreement over how to -6- reconcile subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(3) of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030. LaFave argued that because subsection (b)(2)(A) explicitly limits the certiorari jurisdiction of district courts to review non-final orders entered by lower courts, the reference to the original jurisdiction of the district courts to issue writs of certiorari is also limited to cases involving non-final orders. The State, however, argued that such a reading would render the two subsections redundant and does not reflect the true meaning of the rules. Instead, the State argued that subsection (b)(3) provides a district court with original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, in accordance with its duty to review decisions of lower courts, with no requirement that the order be a non-final one. The district court did not explicitly agree with either jurisdictional argument, but nonetheless found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. We find that the jurisprudence of this Court does not support the district court’s jurisdictional analysis and we, therefore, quash the decision of the district court. The State’s Right to Petition for Common Law Certiorari In 1962, this Court granted jurisdiction in State v. Harris, 136 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1962), where the State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari based on an alleged conflict of decisions, after the district court reversed the defendant’s conviction. Id. at 634. This Court questioned “whether the [S]tate has the right to seek certiorari from a decision of a district court in which that court in a criminal -7- case rules adversely to the [S]tate and favorably to an accused,” and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs. Id. This Court determined that section 924.07 restricted the State from directly appealing to this Court following an adverse decision of a district court in a criminal proceeding, but that section 924.07 did not limit the State’s right to seek certiorari review in this Court. Id. at 634-35. In 1985, this Court decided three cases which implicated the State’s right to petition a district court for certiorari review: State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1985); State v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985); and Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1985). In C.C., the district court consolidated four appeals brought by the State, all involving juvenile defendants, but in various postures when the State sought appellate review. 476 So. 2d at 144. The district court dismissed all appeals by the State, reasoning that the State does not have a constitutional right to appeal, only statutory appellate rights. State v. C.C., 449 So. 2d 280, 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The district court further noted its determination that article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution “permits interlocutory review only in cases in which appeal may be taken as a matter of right.” Id. On review, this Court approved the decision of the district court, finding no constitutional right for the State to appeal adverse final orders of a circuit court, including in juvenile cases, and also determining that section 924.07, Florida Statutes (1981), which provided the State the right to appeal certain adverse -8- criminal dispositions, does not apply to juvenile proceedings. C.C., 476 So. 2d at 145. This Court’s holding in State v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985), was another decision based on an opinion from the Third District, where the State sought review of an adverse decision and had been denied relief by the district court. The district court determined that because the State had no statutory right under section 39.14, Florida Statutes (1981), to appeal an order dismissing a delinquency petition based on a violation of the juvenile’s constitutional right to speedy trial, “it also has no right to have a juvenile order reviewed by writ of certiorari.” G.P., 476 So. 2d at 1273 (citing State v. G.P., 429 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). In a very brief opinion, this Court approved the district court’s