STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
M. JOHN ROESS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State petitioned for certiorari review of a circuit court's reversal of a county court conviction for animal cruelty, arguing the trial court improperly excluded the defendant's prior consistent statement. The Florida District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that certiorari review of a circuit court's appellate decision requires a showing of serious legal error resulting in a miscarriage of justice, which was not present here.
The petition for certiorari is denied because the State failed to demonstrate that the circuit court's decision was so serious and erroneous as to result in a miscarriage of justice, which is the required standard for certiorari review of a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity.
[1] District courts of appeal should grant writs of common-law certiorari only when a violation of a clearly established principle of law has resulted in a miscarriage of jus…
[2] Errors that do not obviously prejudice fundamental rights to the material injury of the complaining parties may not warrant quashing a judgment on certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In granting writs of common-law certiorari, the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error.... The district courts should exercise this discretion only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
Establishes the high standard for certiorari review of circuit court appellate decisions, requiring both legal error and miscarriage of justice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent was convicted by jury in county court of animal cruelty under Florida Statutes § 828.12. The county court trial judge excluded taped eviden…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state, by petition for writ of certiorari, seeks review of an order of the circuit court reversing respondent’s conviction and ordering a new trial. We deny the petition.
Respondent was convicted by a jury in the county court of cruelty to animals, a violation of section 828.12, Florida Statutes (1981). The county court excluded taped evidence of respondent’s prior consistent statement made shortly after the animal was injured. Respondent appealed his conviction to the circuit court, contending that the trial court improperly excluded the statement. The circuit court agreed and reversed, ordering a new trial.
Certiorari review by a district court of appeal of action by a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity is discretionary. Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983). In Combs, the Florida Supreme Court said:
In granting writs of common-law certiorari, the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error.... The district courts should exercise this discretion only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Id. at 95-96. See Clermont Marine Sales, Inc. v. Harmon, 347 So. 2d 839 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).
We cannot say that if we should decide that there was error, the error was so serious that it would result in a miscarriage of justice. Errors “that do not obviously prejudice fundamental rights, to the material injury of the complaining parties, may not cause a judgment to be quashed on certiorari.” Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). The circuit court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The respondent has not been exonerated of criminal wrongdoing. The state has not been deprived of its day in court. See City of Winter Park v. Jones, 392 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We believe that to grant certiorari under the circumstances of this particular case in which the circuit court sat in its appellate capacity would improperly afford two appeals from a trial in the county court. See Clermont. We cannot say that this is one of “those few extreme cases where the appellate court’s decision is so erroneous that justice requires that it-be corrected.” Combs, 436 So. 2d at 95.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)…ourt’s eviction judgment based on a peculiar set of facts. It did not deprive the petitioner of its day in court, nor has it foreclosed the petitioner from seeking eviction of the respondent because of future non-payment of rent. See State v. Roess, 451 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Thus, we are unable to conclude that this is one of “those few extreme cases where the appellate court’s decision is so erroneous that justice requires that it be corrected.” Combs, 436 So. 2d at 95. Heggs, 647 So. 2d at 856. Th…
-
Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Tampa v. Burton, 874 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…is one of'“those few extreme cases where the appellate court’s decision is so erroneous that justice requires that it be corrected.” See Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla.1983). Two cases from this court guide our determination: State v. Roess, 451 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which involved a new trial order; and Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 647 So. 2d 855, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), approved, 658 So. 2d 523, which involved an eviction. In Roess, the circuit court issued a new trial…1 / 2
-
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 647 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ourt’s eviction judgment based on a peculiar set of facts. It did not deprive the petitioner of its day in court, nor has it foreclosed the petitioner from seeking eviction of the respondent because of future non-payment of rent. See State v. Roess, 451 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Thus, we are unable to conclude that this is one of “those few extreme cases where the appellate court’s decision is so erroneous that justice requires that it be corrected.” Combs, 436 So. 2d at 95. In order to avoid the possib…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Clermont Marine Sales, Inc. v. Binion Gaines Harmon, 347 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- City OF Winter Park v. Jones, 392 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)