VIDLER_V._MINA_ _2021 CA 11377 O_ _6.16.2024
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.
Deputy Keith Vidler sought certiorari review of his disciplinary termination by the Orange County Sheriff's Office. The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction over the Sheriff's discretionary executive decisions but could review whether the Disciplinary Appeals Board followed statutory mandates. The petition was denied due to an inadequate record and Vidler's failure to supplement the appendix despite notice.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the Sheriff's discretionary executive decisions under Payne v. Wille, but retains jurisdiction to review whether the Board complied with the OCSO Career Service Act and implementing policy. However, the petition is denied because the record is inadequate and Vidler failed to supplement the appendix despite the court's mandate and the Sheriff's notices of deficiency.
[1] A court has jurisdiction to review whether a disciplinary board followed statutory mandates or implementing policy documents in making a recommendation to a Sheriff.
[2] A court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary, executive decisions of a Sheriff.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The Sheriff asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review his discretionary, executive decisions, citing Payne v. Wille, 657 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We agree.”
Establishes the court's lack of jurisdiction over the Sheriff's discretionary executive decisions in disciplinary matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeith Vidler was a deputy with the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) who received a disciplinary decision from Sheriff John W. Mina and the OCSO D…
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.
JOHN W. MINA, in his official capacity as ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF, Respondent. Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Disciplinary Appeals Board/Sheriff, Orange County Sheriff's Office Richard P. Siwica, Esq., Orlando, of Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A., for Petitioner. Nicholas A. Shannin, Esq., Orlando, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., for Respondent.
PERCURIAM.
Petitioner Keith Vidler ("Vidler"), a deputy of the Orange County Sheriff's Office ("OCSO"), filed this petition seeking certiorari review of a disciplinary decision of John W. Mina as Orange County Sheriff ("the Sheriff') and recommendation of the OCSO Disciplinary Appeals Board (the "Board"). [*2] The Sheriff asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review his discretionary, executive decisions, citing Payne v. Wille, 657 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We agree. However, to the extent that Vidler contends that the Board making a recommendation to the Sheriff did not correctly follow mandates of the OCSO Career Service Act, Ch. 89-507, Laws of Florida, or its implementing policy document, OCSO General Order 5.1.0, we find that we have jurisdiction. See Bradshaw v. Mickins, 946 So. 2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Harrison v. Neumann, 760 So. 2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), rev. dismissed, 816 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2001). Regardless, the record in this case is inadequate to demonstrate Vidler' s allegations that the Board's decision, adopted by the Sheriff, was not supported by competent, substantial evidence or that the OCSO failed to afford him adequate due process protections. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). While Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220(a) mandates that no proceeding shall be determined until an opportunity to supplement the appendix has been given, this Court determines that compliance with that rule has been waived. See Sullivan v. Sullivan, 791 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Moment v. State, 773 So. 2d 577, 578-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Chery v. City of Aventura, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 852a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. December 4, 2019). The Sheriff has twice Page2 of 4 2021-CA-011377-O [*3] pointed out the deficiency in the record related to Vidler's filings, and Vidler has failed to supplement his appendix.1 We have considered the issues raised to the extent that we have jurisdiction and a review of the transcript of the proceedings below is not required, and we find them to be without merit. Petition DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this 16th __ day of __ June ____ , 2024. , ~ _ l s,1s,201} ' =08:09 r \fv\, ~Au~~ eSigned by Mike Murphy 06/16/2024 15:08:09 b6Z"Az
MIKE MURPHY
Circuit Judge LEACH and TYNAN, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Emory Payne v. Wille, 657 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Harrison v. Neumann, 760 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ric L. Bradshaw v. Mickins, 946 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)