CLINTON SAMS AND ELAINE SAMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ST. JOHNS COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, ETC., 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.
The court held that the circuit court's decision did not constitute a violation of clearly established law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, thus denying the petition for certiorari.
Appellants argued errors by the Board of County Commissioners and Code Enforcement Board, but did not allege a denial of due process by the circuit co…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Power cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order of the circuit court acting in its review capacity. We elect to treat the notice of appeal as a petition for certiorari and deny the petition.1
Appellants’ argument is premised upon the alleged errors of the Board of County Commissioners and or the Code Enforcement Board and does not suggest that the circuit court denied them due process. In order to grant a petition for certiorari, there must be a “violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla.1983). The supreme court has characterized certiorari review in the following terms:
The required “departure from the essential requirements of law” means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, and act of tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. The writ of certiorari properly issues to correct essential illegality but not legal error. Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 527 (Fla.1995), quoting Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla.1985) (Boyd, C.J. concurring specially). While we may not have reached the same decision as the circuit court, the record before us does not evince the requisite illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.
PETITION DENIED.
HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…03) Habitual Offender Sentence [*113] Speights v. State, 711 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 728 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1998), quashed and remanded, 749 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1999) (Case No. 93,207) Habitual Offender Sentence Spencer v. State, 712 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 727 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1998) (Case No. 93,430) Simultaneous Incarceration and Probation Stuart v. State; No. 98-02900 (Fla. 2d DCA June 2,1999), review granted, 744 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1999) (Case No. 96,208) Sentence Exc…
-
Spencer v. State, 764 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Spencer v. State, 712 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision [*577] of the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirming on the authority of its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have j…
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Hollis Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1985)