seriousness error in Florida

2019In deciding whether to grant a writ of common-law certiorari, we are not so much concerned with “the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error.” Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95-96 (Fla. 1983).

2018We recognize that "[i]n granting writs of common-law certiorari, the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error." Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983). "[C]ertiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error." Custer Med.

2018See Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1133 (Fla. 2011) (noting that “[o]nce the district court has granted the petition for writ of certiorari . . . ‘the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error’” (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 528 (Fla. 1995))).

2014See Williams [v. Oken], 62 So.3d [1129, 1133 (Fla. 2011)] (“In granting writs of common-law certiorari, the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error.” (quot ing Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995))).

2014Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.”); see also Fernandez, 114 So. 3d at 272 (“Where a circuit court’s decision fails to apply the correct law and establishes ‘principles of general application binding in subsequent cases,’ certiorari review is warranted.” (quoting Hofer, 5 So. 3d at 772 )); United Aut

2009Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So.2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiora-ri is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.”).

2010Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000). “[T]he district court should examine the seriousness of the error and use its discretion to correct an error ‘only when there has been a violation of [a] clearly established principle *242 of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995)).

2010Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000). “[T]he district court should examine the seriousness of the error and use its discretion to correct an error ‘only when there has been a violation of [a] clearly established principle *242 of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995)).

2023See [Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 , 304–05 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)].

2015It held that fundamental errors are those that are “serious” and that “[i]n determining the seriousness of an error, the inquiry-must focus on the nature of the error, its qualitative effect on the sentencing process and its quantitative effect on the sentence.” Id. at 99 (citing Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296, 304-05 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).

1997It is unnecessary to dwell upon the seriousness of such an error; it *497 strikes at the root and base of constitutional liberties; it makes for a deprivation of liberty or life without due process of law; it destroys confidence in the institutions of free America and brings our very government into disrepute. " [emphasis supplied.] Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5, 7 , 89 So. 222 (1921).

1997It is unnecessary to dwell upon the seriousness of such an error; it *497 strikes at the root and base of constitutional liberties; it makes for a deprivation of liberty or life without due process of law; it destroys confidence in the institutions of free America and brings our very government into disrepute. " [emphasis supplied.] Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5, 7 , 89 So. 222 (1921).

2018See Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1133 (Fla. 2011) (noting that “[o]nce the district court has granted the petition for writ of certiorari . . . ‘the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error’” (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 528 (Fla. 1995))).

2012See Williams, 62 So.3d at 1133 (“In granting writs of common-law certiorari, the district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the seriousness of the error.” (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995))).

2014Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.”); see also Fernandez, 114 So. 3d at 272 (“Where a circuit court’s decision fails to apply the correct law and establishes ‘principles of general application binding in subsequent cases,’ certiorari review is warranted.” (quoting Hofer, 5 So. 3d at 772 )); United Aut

2014Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 91 3 So.2d 1281 , 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.”); see also Fernandez, 114 So.3d at 272 (“Where a circuit court’s decision fails to apply the correct law and establishes ‘principles of general application binding in subsequent cases,’ certiorari review is warranted.” (quoting Hofer, 5 So.3d at 772 )); United Auto

2014Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.”); see also Fernandez, 114 So. 3d at 272 (“Where a circuit court’s decision fails to apply the correct law and establishes ‘principles of general application binding in subsequent cases,’ certiorari review is warranted.” (quoting Hofer, 5 So. 3d at 772 )); United Aut

2014Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 91 3 So.2d 1281 , 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.”); see also Fernandez, 114 So.3d at 272 (“Where a circuit court’s decision fails to apply the correct law and establishes ‘principles of general application binding in subsequent cases,’ certiorari review is warranted.” (quoting Hofer, 5 So.3d at 772 )); United Auto

2004See Heggs, 658 So.2d at 528; see also Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla.1983)(holding that in considering common law certiorari, district courts of appeal should be primarily concerned with the seriousness of the error, not the mere existence of error, and should exercise certiorari discretion only when there has been a violation of clearly established principles of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice); Martin County v. City of Stuart, 736 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(holding that when a district court of appeal reviews by certiorari the decision of a three-judge panel of the

2000See Heggs, 658 So.2d at 528 ; see also Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla.1983) (holding that in considering common law certiorari, district courts of appeal should be primarily concerned with the seriousness of the error, not the mere existence of error, and should exercise certiorari discretion only when there has been a violation of clearly established principles of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice); Martin County v. City of Stuart, 736 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that when a district court of appeal reviews by certiorari the decision of a three-judge panel of

2003Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).

2002Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).

2025"In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings." Id.

2009Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So.2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In measuring the seriousness of an error to determine whether second-tier certiorari is available, one consideration is whether the error is isolated in its effect or whether it is pervasive or widespread in its application to numerous other proceedings.” (quoting Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Alliston, 813 So.2d 141, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002))).

2015It held that fundamental errors are those that are “serious” and that “[i]n determining the seriousness of an error, the inquiry-must focus on the nature of the error, its qualitative effect on the sentencing process and its quantitative effect on the sentence.” Id. at 99 (citing Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296, 304-05 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).

2011In determining the seriousness of an error, the inquiry must focus on the nature of the error, its qualitative effect on the sentencing process and its quantitative effect on the sentence.” Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 99 (Fla.2000).

2019The district court should grant a petition “only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id.; see also Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1985) (Boyd, C.J., concurring specially) (noting that a “departure from the essential requirements of law . . . means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice).” Here, we are mindful that trial courts have broad discretion in ov

2009See Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 ; see also State v. Smith, 951 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (recognizing that the standard for certiorari review "pertains to the seriousness of the error, not the impact of the ruling").

2009See Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 ; see also State v. Smith, 951 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (recognizing that the standard for certiorari review “pertains to the seriousness of the error, not the impact of the ruling”).

2009See Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 ; see also State v. Smith, 951 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (recognizing that the standard for certiorari review "pertains to the seriousness of the error, not the impact of the ruling").

2009See Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 ; see also State v. Smith, 951 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (recognizing that the standard for certiorari review “pertains to the seriousness of the error, not the impact of the ruling”).

2002See, e.g., Carnival Corp. v. Beverly, 744 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Saud v. Arzumanian, 745 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).