IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RONALDCARTER CASE NO. SC 3 ~ 3 Petitioner, DCA CASE NO. 5D V. TOMMY BROZINO Respondant. Am»deà PETITIONERS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Review from the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, State of Florida RONALD CARTER in pro se 221 Faye Street Interlachen Florida

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS...iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...2 ARGUMENT...3 CONCLUSION...6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...6 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...6

3 TABLE OF CITATIONS CASES CUSTER MED. CENTER v. UNITED AUTO. INS. CO., 62 So. 3d 1086, (FLA. 2010)...2, 3 RUSSEL v STATE, 982 So.2D 642 (FLA CERT denied, RUSSEL v STATE 129S. Ct. 272 (2008)...5 STATUTES : Matters that must be judicially noticed : Definition of relevent evidence: : Definitions: : Moneys received by contractors: Final written expression:...4 FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (C) RECORD (9) (2) (A) (iv)...3 FLORIDA CONSTITUTION Art V. 3 (b)3...3

4 HI STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS I, Ronald Carter, petitioner am a poorly educated man. I had an above ground pool installed in 2005 by a licensed Putnam County pool installation contractor. The contractor and I signed an installation contract. After the pool had been up for approximately 45 days and the contractor had been paid, the new pools liner had a stick poking thru the new pools vinyl liner. After many arguments the contractor finally put in a replacement liner, he then informed me that he did the entire pool installation without a permit. Before the statute of limitations for enforcing our contract expired I filed suit in the Putnam County Court house. The trial court ignored the contract and assisted the contractor with his case during the trial by giving him legal advice and other help. The trial court then ruled in favor of the contractor. On appeal, I argued that the contract was legally binding and was a legal representation of our agreement as per Florida Statute I argued that Florida statute states the contractor is responsible for the permits. I also told the appeals that the lower court violated my fourteenth Amendment Rights

5 and Florida Constitutional Rights and violates clearly established laws. I explained that the only evidence supplied by the appellee was an oral contradiction to the written contract. The appeals court stated in its order that the trial court made its decision (favorable to the appellee) on substantial competent evidence, and as stated before the only evidence presented by the appellee was an oral contradiction to the written contract. The contractor denied working on the pool at all despite the contract signed and the check in his name being signed by him. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Fifth District Court cited CUSTER MED CENTER to show the requirements for certiorari. The requirements in CUSTER MEDICAL CENTER states there has to be departures from the essential requirements of law and due process violations in order to have certiorari granted. The transcript and the trial courts order clearly show the violations of due process, equal protection of the laws and departures of the essential requirements of law. My case meets all requirements of CUSTER MED. CENTER. ARGUMENT

6 THE DISTRICT COURTS OPINION CONFLICTS WITH THE OPINION IN CUSTER MED. CENTER v UNITED AUTO INSURANCE 62 So.3D 1086, (Fla. 2010) This court has discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision of a district court of appeal which expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this court or of another district court of appeal. Art V. 3(b) 3 Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P (a)(2)(A)(iv). "The constitutional standard is whether the decision of the District Court on its face collides with a prior decision of this Court or another District Court on the same point of law as to create a an inconsistency or conflict among the precedent; "Custer Medical. Center v United Auto Insurance Company, 62 So. 3d 1086, (Fla. 2010), (second- tier certiorari is not a second appeal, but an extraordinarily narrow proceeding limited to correction of procedural due process violations and departures from the essential requirements of the law; ordinary legal errors are not sufficient grounds for second -tier certiorari review) Here the Fifth District Court denied certiorari review. This denial directly conflicts with Custer Medical which holds that certiorari is limited to procedural due process violations and departures from the essential requirements of law. The transcript of county court trial proceeding and the order of the court has captured the violations of my Constitutional rights. It shows how the court has ignored the following laws:

7 1. Fs MATTERS THAT MUST BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED-a court shall take notice of Decisional and Constitutional law and Statutory law... This was a breach of contract case and the contract was ignored. 2. Fs DEFINITION OF RELEVENT EVIDENCE. Admissible factual evidence Fs FINAL WRITTEN EXPRESSION; Parol or extrinsic evidence...may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement... 4 RULES OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (c)" When trial proceedings are being reported, no part of the proceeding shall be omitted... The trial court omitted from the record misconduct by the appellee (T.51). This denied me the opportunity to get a rehearing on the grounds of influencing a witness. 5. The trial court judge, after being told 4 times by the appellee that he did not object to the contract being entered into evidence(t.18 ) still did not enter the contract into evidence and gave the appellee two legal examples of how to possibly keep the contract out of evidence?(t.18 lines 19 thru 23). 6. The trial court by violating the above laws and rules allowed the contractor to avoid his responsibility of Florida statute MONEYS RECEIVED BY CONTRACTORS---(2) A contractor who receives an initial payment...totaling more than 10 percent of the contract price...must (a) apply for permits... I was denied this defense by the court not recognizing public statutory law.

8 7. The trial court's refusal to characterize the contract as a contract allowed the contractor to avoid his responsibility of Fs DEFINITIONS(3)...the contractor shall only be responsible for the project contracted for The trial court allowed the clerk to accept my damages evidence and not do anything with it, the clerk just held it (T.27). This allowed the court to say in its order I did not prove my damages. The Fifth District denial to grant certiorari directly conflicts with Custer Medical Center that's says certiorari...is limited to corrections of procedural due process violations and essential requirements of law... The record shows many violations of due process violations and departures from the essential requirements of law. The Custer Medical Center Court specifically recognized that violations of the essential requirements of law and due process violations were accepted jurisdiction. B. REASONS TO EXERCISE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION REVIEW Once the Court accepts jurisdiction in order to resolve conflict, it accepts jurisdiction to address all issues properly raised in the lower court, Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642 (fla. Cert denied. Russell v. Florida, 129 S.Ct. 272 (2008). The Court should exercise its jurisdiction in favor of accepting the instant case because

9 it involves the departure from the essential requirements of law and violates due process requirements. My financial condition (on SSI) does not allow me to hire an attorney and all the free legal resources have denied my case. The instant case has all the requirements for certiorari review. The record clearly shows the violations on matters that have long been recognized by the courts. This court should accept jurisdiction and consider my argument and the record before issuing a definitive opinion on accepting jurisdiction. CONCLUSION Petitioner respectfully requests that this court accept review of the instant case and order briefs on the merits. Respectfully submitted CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ronald Carter in pro se 221 Faye Street Interlachen Florida I CERTIFY a copy of the foregoing brief has been furnished to Tommy Brozino, 228 May Lane, Interlachen, Florida and The Supreme Court of Florida of 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida by U.S. Mail on, March 5, Ronald Carter in pro se 221 Faye Street Interlachen, Florida

10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing brief is submitted in 14 point Times New Roman and complies with the required font standards of Florida RULES OF APPELATE PROCEDURE

11 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT Ronald Carter ) Petitioner, ) Case No. 5D ) v. ) Tommy Brozino,) Respondent. ) ) ) NOTICE TO INVOKE. DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION NOTICE IS GIVEN that Ronald Carter, Petitioner, invokes the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the decision of this court rendered on January 17, The decision expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same question of law. Ronald Carter in pro se 221 Faye street Interlachen Florida, I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Tommy Brozino of 228 May Lane, Interlachen, Florida 32148, the Fifth Disrict Court of Appeal at 300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida and The Supreme Court of Florida of 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida b U.S. mail on March 5, /s/ fádf Ronald Carter in pro se 221 Faye Street Interlachen, Florida I certify this motion is typed in Times New Roman and meets (2) all font requirements. /// (AE>

12 BT C WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 CASE NO.: SCl3-312 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 5D , CA, SC RONALD CARTER vs. TOMMY BROZINO Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) All pleadings filed in this Court must contain a Certificate of Service stating the names and addresses of those served and, if served on an attorney, the name of the party that attorney represents. See Fla. R. App. P Your notice to invoke discretionaryjurisdiction will not be submitted to the Court until you have served all respondents and provided this Court with a proper Certificate of Service. Failure to provide this Court with a Certificate of Service within twenty days from the date of this order could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the petition. See Fla. R. App. P Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to reinstatement. A True Copy Test: all tg Served: HON. PAMELA R. MASTERS, CLERK RONALD CARTER TOMMY BROZINO