Court rules that DCAs have the final say in PCAs

Florida Bar News
October 1, 2004

The recently adopted Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) cannot be used to get the Supreme Court to review a case where a district court of appeal has refused to issue an opinion or explanation when it decided an appeal.

The high court made that ruling September 2 in dismissing a request that it use its all writs authority to review a Second DCA ruling in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon, 856 So. 2d 998 (Fla 2d DCA 2003).

R.J. Reynolds had appealed a circuit court ruling, which the Second DCA rejected with an opinion reading ""PER CURIAM Affirmed."" The company then asked for a rehearing, a rehearing en banc, certification, and for issuance of a written opinion under Rule 9.330(a).

The appellate court rejected all those motions with a one-line ruling stating only that the motions were denied. R.J. Reynolds then petitioned the Supreme Court in its all writs jurisdiction and asked the court to ""clarify the standards to be used by the district courts in ruling on a request for a written opinion"" made under Rule 9.330(a).

In its unanimous per curiam opinion, the justices said that would constitute an end run around its constitutionally limited jurisdiction that prevents the court from reviewing DCA rulings issued without an opinion. The court also noted that Rule 9.330(a) —— adopted after a special committee studied the per curiam affirm issue —— specifically allowed a party to request a written opinion from the DCA, but does not require the DCA to grant the request or give the Supreme Court authority to review such a denial.

""[T]he petition is an attempt to obtain this court’’s review of the unelaborated order denying the Rule 9.330(a) motion and an attempt to have this court compel the district court to write an opinion,"" the ruling said. ""Because the order denying the motions does not contain any citation, explanation, or elaboration, we have no jurisdiction to review the order.""

The opinion also noted, ""Even though Rule 9.330(a) has been expressly amended to allow a party to request a written opinion from a district court, that rule did not create an automatic right for a party to obtain a written opinion when requested.""

The justices concluded: ""We reiterate that in the future we will dismiss all extraordinary writ petitions, regardless of how they are designated, in which the petition requests that this court review a district court’’s denial of a request for a written opinion made pursuant to Rule 9.330(a) and the denial does not include any elaboration, citation, or explanation that would give this court jurisdiction.""