2D07-1537 / Byle v. Pasco County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Second District Court of Appeal » 2007 » 2D07-1537 / Byle v. Pasco County

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D07-1537

Case Date: 10/12/2007

Plaintiff: 2D07-1537 / Byle

Defendant: Pasco County

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
STEVE BYLE,                                      )
)
Petitioner,                                      )
)
v.                                               )   Case No.   2D07-1537
)
PASCO COUNTY, by and through its                 )
Board of County Commissioners, and               )
MID-PENINSULA REALTY                             )
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,                           )
)
Respondents.                                     )
)
________________________________ )
Opinion filed October 12, 2007.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial
Circuit for Pasco County; sitting in its
appellate capacity.
Steve Byle, pro se.
W. Elizabeth Blair, Senior Assistant
County Attorney, New Port Richey,
for Respondent Pasco County.
Richard Millian of Tew & Associates,
Clearwater, for Respondent
Mid-Peninsula Realty Investment
Group, LLC.

KELLY, Judge.
Steve Byle petitioned the circuit court to review by certiorari the Pasco
County Board of County Commissioners' approval of a preliminary site plan and
variance request application.   The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of
standing.   Byle petitions this court to review by second-tier certiorari the circuit court's
order.   This court's second-tier review is limited to determining whether the circuit court
provided Byle with procedural due process and whether it departed from the essential
requirements of law.   See Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 794
So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001).
Byle argues that the circuit court did not provide him with procedural due
process because a single judge rather than a three-judge panel disposed of his petition.
Local Rule 1(A)(1) of the Sixth Judicial Circuit requires that appeals to the Sixth Circuit
Court from designated administrative bodies of Pinellas and Pasco Counties be
assigned to three-judge panels in the appellate division.   Sixth Judicial Circuit
Administrative Order No. 2007-016 PA/PI-CIR further clarifies that "[a]ll civil and criminal
cases invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court pursuant to the Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.030(c), including . . . petitions to review
administrative action . . . shall be heard by three-judge panels."
As Byle correctly notes, when a circuit court adopts a local rule requiring
that petitions be heard by three-judge panels, a single judge may not decide the merits
of the petition.   See McAlevy v. State, 947 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Melkonian
v. Goldman, 647 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).   Because the Sixth Judicial Circuit
has promulgated a rule requiring three-judge panels to decide petitions seeking review
- 2 -

of administrative action, Byle was deprived of procedural due process when a single
judge ruled on his petition.   See McAlvey, 947 So. 2d at 528.   Accordingly, we grant the
petition for certiorari and quash the order under review.
Petition for certiorari granted.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
- 3 -

Download 2D07-1537.pdf