IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC Lower Court Case Number 4D

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC Lower Court Case Number 4D EDWARD SEGAL, Petitioner, vs. BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent. BROWARD COUNTY S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION JEFFREY J. NEWTON Broward County Attorney ANDREW J. MEYERS Chief Appellate Counsel JAMES D. ROWLEE Assistant County Attorney Governmental Center, Suite South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Telephone: (954) Facsimile: (954)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...2 ARGUMENT...3 THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT ON THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW CONCLUSION...4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...4 i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995)...3 Rules of Procedure Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv)...3 ii

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS After conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, a Broward County Code Enforcement Hearing Officer entered a Final Order finding that Petitioner, Edward N. Segal ( Segal ), violated the Broward County Zoning Code by displaying prohibited pole and wall signs at his property in unincorporated Broward County. The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, reversed the Final Order based on an improper ex parte communication that took place between the County and the Hearing Officer. The circuit court instructed the County, on remand, to assign a different hearing officer to preside over the case. (A:2). Even though the circuit court ruled in Segal s favor, Segal appealed the circuit court s decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Fourth District denied the petition on the merits, finding that [t]he circuit court observed the essential requirements of law and afforded petitioner due process. Segal moved for reconsideration, clarification and opinion, all of which were denied. Segal now seeks review in this Court. 1

5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Segal alleges the lower court decision conflicts with three decisions of this Court and three decisions of other district courts of appeal on the same question of law. First, there is no conflict. Second, none of the allegedly conflicting decisions addresses the same question law addressed by the lower court. In fact, none of those decisions was relied upon by the lower court or even referenced in the lower court decision. Because there is no express and direct conflict with any decision of this Court or another district court of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the lower court decision. 2

6 ARGUMENT THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH A DECISION OF ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT OR OF THIS COURT ON THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW. Under Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court has discretion to review district court decisions that expressly and directly conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law. Here, the district court decision denying Segal s petition for writ of certiorari states in its entirety: [It is] ORDERED that the petition is denied on the merits. The circuit court observed the essential requirements of law and afforded petitioner due process. The two-pronged standard of review applied by the district court in denying the petition is commensurate with this Court s decision in Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, (Fla. 1995), which held that the narrow standard of review for a petition for writ of certiorari filed from a decision of the circuit court sitting in its review capacity is whether the circuit court observed the essential requirements of law and afforded due process. Not only did the district court apply the correct legal standard, none of the decisions cited in Segal s jurisdictional brief conflicts with the district court, none addressed the same question of law, and none was mentioned by the district court. 3

7 CONCLUSION The lower court decision does not expressly and directly conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of this Court on the same question of law. This Court should, therefore, decline review. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies a copy hereof was mailed December 18, 2006, to Edward N. Segal, Pro Se, 371 East Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida point font. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned certifies this brief was prepared in Times New Roman 14- Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey J. Newton Broward County Attorney Governmental Center, Suite South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida Telephone: (954) Fax: (954) By: s/james D. Rowlee Andrew J. Meyers Chief Appellate Counsel Florida Bar No James D. Rowlee Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No

8