DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
BARRY BERGMAN, RESPONDENT
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 court minutes, even if signed, do not constitute a reviewable order for the purpose of filing a petition for certiorari.
The Department of Corrections sought review of a circuit court order requiring it to pay for a deaf interpreter for a probationer. The Department argu…
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 Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The Department of Corrections seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court requiring it to pay for a deaf interpreter to assist respondent Barry Bergman, who is hearing impaired, during his court ordered sex offender probation. The Department argues that there is no statutory authority to require it to pay for the accommodation. Instead, the Department argues that under the Americans with Disabilities Act the sex offender treatment provider, Family Alliance, should pay for the accommodation.
The Department is seeking review of a ruling set forth in court minutes. In State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.2004), the Florida Supreme Court held that for the purpose of determining when certiorari review must be filed under rule 9.100(c)(1), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a court minutes form, even if signed by a judge, does not constitute a reviewable order and the act of filing the minutes does not amount to rendition. Therefore, there is no reviewable order in this case.
The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.2004).
DISMISSED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.
On Motion for Rehearing
PLEUS, J.
In its motion, the Department acknowledges that the supreme court held in State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.2004), that a court minutes form, even if signed by a judge, does not constitute a reviewable order. The court reasoned that “a formal written order will articulate the trial court’s decision and its supporting reasoning much clearer than a clerk’s notation in a court minutes form.” The court ruled that allowing signed minute forms to constitute rendered orders would create the potential for inadvertent rendition. For example, a judge may sign a court minutes form and file it with the clerk unbeknownst to the parties. An area of confusion may arise where a “court minutes/order” form signed by a judge is utilized. See State v. Brown, 629 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The Department interprets footnote 7 in Wagner as approving the use of a joint “court minutes/order” form, such as used in Brown and in this ease, as distinguished from the minutes form in Wagner, which did not specifically indicate it was an order. However, in Broum, this Court held that it lacked jurisdiction where the State failed to appeal a combined court minutes/order form within the required time after filing of the minutes. We read this as an example of why such use causes confusion and was disapproved.
MOTION DENIED.
SAWAYA, C.J. and PETERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…Corrections sought certiorari review in our court in a case [*870] where, like this one, it was directed to pay for an interpreter to assist a deaf defendant undergoing court ordered sex offender treatment. See Department of Corrections v. Bergman, 890 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The certiorari petition in that case was dismissed because there was no reviewable order in that case, only a court minutes form. See generally, State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.2004). In Department of Corrections v. Grubb…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. E.G., 939 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…set forth in trial court forms where the term “court minutes” appears at the top of the form, and we have recognized the need to recede from our ruling in Brown as a result of the Wagner opinion. For example, in Department of Corrections v. Bergman, 890 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), this court reasoned that, even though the document at issue had ordered the Department of Corrections to pay for an interpreter, had been signed by the trial judge, and had been filed with the clerk, the form did not constitute…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Brown, 629 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)