Court Opinion

ID: 9963079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:03:29.178635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.055955
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                             State of Florida

                      Opinion filed April 24, 2024.

                          ________________

                            No. 3D22-1404
                     Lower Tribunal No. B22-14816
                         ________________

                        City of Miami Beach,
                               Appellant,

                                   vs.

                         Adalberto Cosme,
                               Appellee.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Robin W.
Faber, Judge.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General; Rafael A. Paz, City Attorney, and Robert F. Rosenwald,
Jr., Chief Deputy City Attorney, and Woody Clermont, Assistant City
Attorney, for appellant.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
                On Motion for Rehearing or Clarification

     PER CURIAM.

     Upon consideration, the Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing or

Clarification, and Corrected Motion for Rehearing or Clarification are hereby

denied. The Appellant’s Response is noted.

    SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.

                                     2
                                  City of Miami Beach v. Adalberto Cosme
                                                           Case No. 3D22-1404
MILLER, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing or clarification.

      I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing or clarification. In

reversing the case on due process grounds, the majority relies upon an

argument advanced by the State for the first time in the reply brief. As

appellee correctly argues, this course of action constitutes a sharp

departure from established tenets of appellate law. See Hoskins v. State,

75 So. 3d 250, 257 (Fla. 2011) (barring issue not raised in initial brief);

Gen. Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v. Campolo Realty & Mortg. Corp., 678 So. 2d

431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“The fact that this issue was raised for the

first time in the reply brief alone precludes our consideration of the

matter.”); Land v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 181 So. 3d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA

2015) (“[T]his court is unable to entertain appellants’ argument . . . which

they failed to raise in their initial brief.”); Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283,

1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Issues raised on appeal for the first time in a

reply brief are not properly before this court and will not be considered.”).

Accordingly, in my view, lack of preservation should have doomed this

appeal to failure.

                                         3