ALEJANDRO GABRIEL ARGERICH

v.

CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS

Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ.

[*2] PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Appellant appeals a Final Administrative Order ("Order") upholding a red light camera citation issued to him by the City of Miami Gardens ("City"). The record reflects that the Order in this appeal was rendered on February 18, 2020. The notice of appeal was not filed until 48 days later on April 7, 2020. As such, this court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal if untimely. See Miami- Dade County v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that the notice of appeal filed 31 days after the administrative hearing officer rendered her decision deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal) (citing Crapp v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm'n, 753 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("[a]n appellate court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a cause where a notice of appeal has not been timely filed")).

However, Appellant argues that this appeal is timely, relying on Eleventh Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 20-04 ("AO 20-04") addressing extensions of time in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. AO 20-04, dated March 25, 2020, provides that "[a]ll time limits set by judicial order and/or authorized by rule and statute applicable to civil (inclusive of circuit and county), family, domestic violence, dependency, probate, small claims, traffic, bond forfeiture, and appellate Page 2 of 5 [*3] proceedings are further suspended until the close of business day on Monday, April 20, 2020."

While that Circuit Court Administrative Order states that deadlines are extended for appellate proceedings, AO 20-04 does not specifically state that the 30day deadline in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(c) for filing an appeal is extended, nor could it so state. Neither trial nor appellate courts in this state are authorized to extend the time for filing notices of appeal, "no matter what reason or method is employed in an attempt to do so." Congregation Temple De Hirsch of Seattle, Wash. v. Aronson, 128 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1961). Similarly, in Jones v. Jones, 845 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (5th DCA 2003), the court dismissed an appeal filed more than 30 days after rendition of a judgment, stating: "[j]urisdictional time limits may not be altered by the actions or inactions of the parties or the trial court... The trial court was without authority to extend the time to file a motion for rehearing or to file the notice of appeal". Following the same rationale, the court dismissed an appeal as untimely in Capone v. Florida Board of Regents, 774 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (concluding that a court's local rules and practices for filing of nonjurisdictional papers cannot usurp the constitutional power of the supreme court's authority to establish the time limit within which appellate review must be sought).

Page 3 of 5 [*4] Based on the foregoing authorities, we conclude that this appeal is untimely and should be dismissed. Even assuming arguendo that we had concluded otherwise, we find that the Order should be affirmed in any event.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In an appeal of a decision of an administrative agency, this court reviews whether procedural due process was accorded, whether the essential requirements of law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995), citing City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of C'ty Comm'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1274 (Fla. 2001).

Procedural due process requires that the agency provide reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. Housing Authority of the City of Tampa v. Robinson, 464 So. 2d 158, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Here, Petitioner received procedural due process as the hearing he requested before a hearing officer was scheduled for February 18, 2020. Notwithstanding, Appellant failed to appear at the hearing, arguing that he did not Page 4 of 5 [*5] receive notice of the hearing. The record reflects, however, that the January 27, 2020 Administrative Hearing Notification Letter attached to the City's answer brief was mailed to the same address for the Appellant as the Notice of Violation and the Hearing Officer's Order, which Appellant undisputedly did receive.

Appellant also failed to provide a transcript of the Hearing. In appellate proceedings, the decision of a lower tribunal has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error").

As procedural due process was accorded and Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error, the Order is AFFIRMED.

TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ. concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL

OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY

NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

Page 5 of 5 [*6] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected]