MATTHEW HORAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN REESE, CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A police officer appeals the dismissal of his employment by Miami's city manager following a Civil Service Board hearing. The circuit court denied certiorari and upheld the dismissal, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the city manager had authority to impose dismissal despite the Board's recommendation of suspension.
The city manager had authority to disregard the Board's penalty recommendation and impose dismissal. The Board's guilt findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence, and the dismissal penalty was within the range authorized for the charges of which guilt was established.
[1] A city manager may impose a penalty of dismissal for police officer misconduct, even if a Civil Service Board recommends a lesser penalty.
[2] A city manager's decision to dismiss a police officer is presumed to be within their power when supported by competent and substantial evidence of guilt on established ch…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 city manager was not limited to the penalties recommended by the Board. The Board's recommendation as to penalty could be followed or disregarded by the city manager in imposing punishment.”
Establishes the city manager's discretionary authority over penalties independent of the Board's recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Horan, a police officer, was charged with seven counts of misconduct. The Civil Service Board found him not guilty on some charges and guilty …
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 Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court upholding an order of the city manager of the City of Miami by which a police officer was dismissed following hearing before the Civil Service Board on seven charges of misconduct. The Board found the officer not guilty on certain of the charges, and guilty on others, and recommended that the officer be suspended for a period of four months and that he then serve in a probationary status for one year. The city manager entered his decision or order which sustained the findings of the Board as to the appellant’s guilt or innocence of the respective charges, but ordered dismissal, in conformity to the original action of that character which had been taken by the chief of police.
The judgment of the circuit court denying certiorari recited the facts of the case, and included the following:
“5. The Judgment was based on the Respondent’s finding that the Board’s findings on Petitioner’s guilt and innocence were sustained by competent and substantial evidence and upon his further finding that there was no cogent reason to lessen the penalty of dismissal which had originally been imposed. It adjudged the Petitioner to be not guilty of charge No. 1, charge No. 2, charge No. 3 and charge No. 7, but guilty of charge No. 4, charge No. 5 and charge No. 6; further, that the Petitioner be dismissed from his employment effective as of August 11, 1970.
*574“6. This Court has examined the entire Record and carefully considered all of the points raised by Petitioner. An Analysis of the charges indicates that they were sufficiently specific and factual to permit a simple finding of guilty or innocent. Those charges of which the Petitioner was found guilty were indeed proven by competent and substantial evidence. All of the essential requirements of the law are found to have been met and the Respondent acted within his power in setting dismissal from employment as the penalty.”
The findings of the Board were supported by competent substantial evidence. The penalty imposed was within the range authorized for charges of which guilt was established. The city manager was not limited to the penalties recommended by the Board. The Board’s recommendation as to penalty could be followed or disregarded by the city manager in imposing punishment. The prerogative of the city manager in this respect is well settled. See Simpson v. Handberry, 159 Fla. 805, 33 So.2d 31; Baynard v. Windom, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 773; State ex rel. Eldredge v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 403.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Staphylaris v. City OF Miami, 314 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…[*806] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Brown v. Civil Service Board of City of North Miami Beach, Fla.App.1975, 310 So. 2d 332; Horan v. Reese, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 573; State ex rel. Eldredge v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 403.…
Authorities Cited
- Walton Medders v. State, 102 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Baynard v. Windom, 63 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1952)
- Simpson v. Handberry, 159 Fla. 805 (Fla. 1947)