SC06-01 - In Re: Report of the Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Supreme Court » 2006 » SC06-01 - In Re: Report of the Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction—Rule of Judicial Administration 2.036

SC06-01 - In Re: Report of the Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction—Rule of Judicial Administration 2.036

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: sc06-01

Case Date: 02/16/2006

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC06-01
IN RE:   REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL WORKLOAD AND JURISDICTION—RULE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION 2.036.
[February 16, 2006]
PARIENTE, C.J.
In this case, we adopt a rule of judicial administration that will help this
Court determine the necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate
districts.1  The new rule is the culmination of the work of the Supreme Court’s
Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction (Workload and
Jurisdiction Committee).  The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee consisted of
county, circuit and district court judges, a judge of compensation claims, the
solicitor general, general counsel to the Governor, private attorneys, an assistant
public defender, and the Clerk of this Court.  See Committee on District Court of
1.   We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 9, Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
2.130(a).

Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction, Report and Recommendations 2-3 (2005)
(hereinafter Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report).2
We approve the Committee’s recommendations, which were submitted
without dissent, and adopt new Rule of Judicial Administration 2.036,
Determination of the Necessity to Increase, Decrease, or Redefine Appellate
Districts.  This rule will provide an important comprehensive framework to fulfill
this Court’s constitutional obligation to assess the need to increase, decrease, or
redefine appellate districts.  It specifically is intended to ensure that our district
courts of appeal, as the courts of last resort in the vast majority of appeals, continue
to dispense justice in a timely and efficient manner that meets the needs of our
people.
2.   The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee members were: The
Honorable Chris W. Altenbernd, Judge, Second District Court of Appeal (Chair);
The Honorable William A. Van Nortwick, Jr., Judge, First District Court of
Appeal; The Honorable Melvia B. Green, Judge, Third District Court of Appeal;
The Honorable Martha C. Warner, Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal; The
Honorable William David Palmer, Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal; The
Honorable Henry E. Davis, Circuit Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit; The
Honorable Hugh D. Hayes, Chief Judge, Twentieth Judicial Circuit; The
Honorable Mark K. Leban, County Court Judge, Miami-Dade County; Ms.
Kathryn Senecal Pecko, Judge of Compensation Claims, Miami; The Honorable
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court of Florida; Ms. Raquel A. Rodriguez,
General Counsel, Office of the Governor; Mr. Christopher M. Kise, Solicitor
General of Florida; Ms. Margaret Good-Earnest, Assistant Public Defender,
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; Mr. Stephen Busey, Attorney, Jacksonville; Mr. John G.
Crabtree, Attorney, Key Biscayne; Ms. Rebecca Mercier-Vargas, Attorney, West
Palm Beach; Mr. Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., Attorney, Miami.
- 2 -

BACKGROUND
Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that the Supreme
Court “shall establish by rule uniform criteria for the determination of the need for
additional judges except supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the
number of judges and for increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts.”
(Emphasis supplied.)  Further, the Constitution provides that if the Court “finds
that a need exists for increasing or decreasing the number of judges or increasing,
decreasing, or redefining appellate districts . . . , it shall, prior to the next regular
session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and
recommendations concerning such need.”
As originally adopted, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.035 set
forth the procedure and criteria for determining both the need for additional judges,
and the necessity for decreasing the number of judges and for increasing,
decreasing, or redefining appellate districts.  See In re Fla. Rules of Judicial
Admin. (Determination of Need for Additional Judges), 442 So. 2d 198, 198
(1983).   However, as currently drafted, rule 2.035 focuses only on the criteria for
determining the need for increasing or decreasing the number of judges and the
procedures for certifying the Court’s findings and recommendations concerning
that need to the Legislature.  See Amendment to the Fla. Rules of Judicial Admin.
(Certification of Judges), 888 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2004) (amending rule and
- 3 -

recognizing that rule sets forth uniform criteria for determining the need for
increasing or decreasing the number of judges and procedures for certifying the
Court’s findings and recommendations to the Legislature); Amendment to Fla.
Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.035, 665 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1995) (amending statement of
purpose to clarify that the criteria in rule form the primary basis for Court’s
determination of need “for additional judges”).
In 2004, we established the Committee on District Court of Appeal
Workload and Jurisdiction.  See Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload
and Jurisdiction, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-122 (Sept. 22, 2004) (on file
with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).   The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee was charged
with developing recommendations to the Court “on uniform criteria as a primary
basis for the determination of the need to increase, decrease, or redefine the
appellate districts.”  Admin. Order AOSC04-122 at 2.
The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee submitted its report and
recommendations, which include proposed new Rule of Judicial Administration
2.036 to serve as a companion rule to rule 2.035.  After considering the
Committee’s thorough, well-reasoned report and recommendations, the Court
approves its recommendations and adopts proposed new rule 2.036, with minor
modifications.
- 4 -

DISCUSSION
A timely and meaningful appeal heard by a fair and impartial tribunal is
integral to our system of justice.3  Appellate review identifies and corrects harmful
trial-level errors, ensuring consistent application of the laws and constitutionally
guaranteed rights and liberties.4  A court capable of keeping pace with its caseload
is indispensable to this process.  An efficient, well-resourced appellate court
expeditiously processes appeals and, with the assistance of law clerks and the
briefs of counsel, renders thoroughly researched and carefully considered decisions
on the issues presented.
Florida’s court structure includes appellate courts known as district courts of
appeal.  This Court’s limited jurisdiction places district courts in the crucial
position of serving as the appellate tribunal of last resort for most litigants.   The
five district courts of appeal, in raw numbers, have annually received a total of
approximately twenty-four thousand cases in recent years, while the Supreme
3.   See, e.g., In re Alkire’s Estate, 198 So. 475, 482 (Fla. 1940)
(supplemental opinion) (“Judicial appeals are not merely formalities; but are
intended to aid in administering right and justice by due course of law, as is
required by the constitution, as well as to aid in establishing the jurisprudence of
the State.”).
4.   See Standards Relating to Appellate Courts § 3.00 cmt. (1994) (“The
intermediate appellate court has primary responsibility for review of individual
cases and a responsibility, subordinate to that of the highest court, for extending
the application of developing law within the doctrinal framework fashioned by the
highest court . . .                                                                      .”).
- 5 -

Court has received approximately twenty-five hundred cases.5  Opinions issued by
these courts of appeal join the body of jurisprudence of the state and are
subsequently relied on as precedent by judges, attorneys, and parties in other
cases.6
Committee Report and Recommendations
The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee submitted its report and
recommendations to the Chief Justice in October 2005.  In performing its work, the
Committee reviewed the major developments in Florida’s appellate court system
since the creation of the first three district courts in 1957, and built on the
substantial body of work amassed by the Judicial Management Council’s
Committee on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability and its
5.   In Fiscal Year 2003-04 the district courts of appeal received 24,157
filings and the Supreme Court received 2,473.  See Office of the State Courts
Administrator, Florida State Courts Annual Report 2004-2005 44 (2005).
6.      The Committee on District Court of Appeal Performance and
Accountability has defined the mission of Florida’s district courts as follows:
The purpose of Florida’s District Courts of Appeal is to provide
the opportunity for thoughtful review of decisions of lower tribunals
by multi-judge panels.  District Courts of Appeal correct harmful
errors and ensure that decisions are consistent with our rights and
liberties.  This process contributes to the development, clarity, and
consistency of the law.
Committee on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability, Judicial
Management Council, Report and Recommendations 2 (1999).
- 6 -

successor, the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and
Accountability (Performance and Accountability Commission).7  Workload and
Jurisdiction Committee Report at 4.  Using information generated under the
guidance of the Performance and Accountability Commission, the Workload and
Jurisdiction Committee examined detailed filing trends by case type for districts
and circuits, dating to 1989 and projected forward through 2015, as well as other
relevant research.  Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 4-5.
Analysis of the caseloads and trend data led the Committee to conclude that
many commonly held beliefs about factors that contribute to appellate
court caseloads, such as correlations to populations, numbers of
attorneys, and trial court caseloads are overstated, and that caseloads
are also affected by changes in the law, such as those contributing to
post-conviction appeals, and changes in trial court practice, such as
increased reliance on mediation and other private forums.
Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 5.  Indeed, as illustrated in the
chart below, examination of caseload trends in the district courts indicates that
when examined by type, the volume of appeals in family, probate, and
administrative cases (except in the First District) has remained relatively constant
and civil appeals have declined, likely due to increased use of mediation and
7.   The emphasis of those bodies has been on objective analysis of reliable
and relevant data to guide management decisions related to the district courts.  To
this end, the Performance and Accountability Commission has developed a
comprehensive performance measurement framework for the district courts and
has greatly advanced the uniformity and quality of caseload data available for
analysis within this framework.
- 7 -

greater stability in the law.  On the other hand, criminal case appeals have
increased steadily during the same period, fueled by an almost tenfold increase in
postconviction appeals.8
DCA Filing Trends
10,000
Civil                                                                                                                         Criminal
7,500
Civil
Criminal
5,000
2,500
Administrative
Post Conviction
Family                                                                                                                        Probate
Juvenile
0
1985  87/88  88/89  89/90  90/91  91/92  92/93  93/94  94/95  95/96  96/97  97/98  98/99  99/00  00/01  01/02  02/03  03/04
Fiscal Year
Postconviction cases have had the most dramatic impact on district court
caseloads.  The extent of this impact on a particular district court’s caseload
depends partly on the dispersion of prisoner populations.  Jurisdiction to adjudicate
petitions by prisoners challenging some aspect of their incarceration lies in the
circuit where they are imprisoned, not the circuit where they were convicted and
8.   According to statistics compiled by the Office of the State Courts
Administrator, in 1987-88, the 585 postconviction cases filed in the district courts
represented 4.4% of all cases.   By 2003-04 this number had risen to over 5300
filings, 22% of all district court cases.
- 8 -

sentenced.  See Strategic Planning Unit, Office of the State Courts Administrator,
Factors that Impact Caseload in the District Courts of Appeal 13 (2005).
These findings led the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee to conclude
that “future caseloads cannot be reliably projected based on linear calculations of
populations and other data, but are dependent on uncertain contingencies regarding
the legal and social structure.”  Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 6.
The Committee also found that
judicial workload—the efforts required of judges as distinct from
overall court workload that can be carried in part by staff—is less
closely related to caseloads than is widely believed.  Judicial
workload can be substantial for some case types and much less for
others.  Furthermore, workload continues to be highly influenced by
changes in court processes and internal operations, such as the use of
staff attorneys and deployment of information technologies that
increase judicial efficiency.  Thus, assessments and projections of a
court’s workload cannot be reliably based on caseloads alone, but
must be based on a number of interrelated factors.
Id.
In examining the relationship of the number of judges on a court and overall
performance, the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee looked to the 2004 report
by the Performance and Accountability Commission, Court Size as it Affects
Collegiality and Court Performance.  The Committee observed that the
Performance and Accountability Commission’s findings established that the
widely held “assumption that a court would become less effective when the
number of judges on the court approached twenty no longer holds true.”  Workload
- 9 -

and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 7.  This is attributable to “developments in
court management practices, the deployment of resources such as central staffs,
and the increased sophistication of information-sharing technologies, including
video conferencing, e-mail, and document management.”  Id.  The Commission
reported that “larger appellate courts with strong leadership, adequate staff support,
well considered case management strategies and appropriate technology can
operate with a collegial environment and efficiency similar to or even greater than
that of a smaller court.”  Id. at 7-8 (quoting Commission on District Court of
Appeal Performance and Accountability, Court Size as it Affects Collegiality and
Court Performance 4 (June 2004)).
In light of these conclusions, the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee does
not support the use of arbitrary numerical thresholds to determine when caseload
or court size are too great.  Instead, the Committee advocates an approach that
concentrates on outcomes measured through indicia of performance.9  The
Committee states:
The essential question to be asked . . . is not whether a court has
too many judges, its caseload is too high, or it publishes too few
opinions.  The relevant question is simply whether, given the totality
9.   Performance measurement models for appellate courts studied by the
Workload and Jurisdiction Committee include the Report of the Commission on
Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeal (1999); National Center
for State Courts, Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures (1999);
Standards Relating to Court Organization (1990); and Standards Relating to
Appellate Courts (1994).
- 10 -

of the circumstances, Florida’s district courts are able to effectively
and efficiently perform their primary functions in service to the
people.
Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 8.  If the data indicate that the
district courts are “struggling to fulfill their mission,” then a redefinition of the
appellate districts should be considered.
The Court approves the Committee’s recommended “outcomes-based”
approach to assessment of the district courts for purposes of determining the
necessity to increase, decrease, or redefine appellate districts.  This approach
represents the best practices supported by current court management research, see
National Center for State Courts, Appellate Court Performance Standards and
Measures (1999), and is currently followed in both our circuit and district courts.
Rule 2.036, Determination of the Necessity to Increase, Decrease, or Redefine
Appellate Districts and 2006 Review
The Court adopts, with minor modifications, proposed new Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.036, Determination of the Necessity to Increase, Decrease, or
Redefine Appellate Districts.   The new rule provides uniform criteria for the
Court’s use in performing the duties mandated by article V, section 9 of the Florida
Constitution, and serves as a companion rule to existing rule 2.035, Determination
of Need for Additional Judges.
- 11 -

•  Eight-year Review Cycle
Subdivision (b) of the rule provides for a review to be conducted every eight
years by an assessment committee appointed by the Chief Justice.  The Workload
and Jurisdiction Committee recommends an eight-year review cycle for several
reasons.  First, the review process, which will be comprehensive, will constitute a
formidable task for both the assessment committee and the district courts.  Second,
changes necessitating future reorganization of the district courts will probably
emerge gradually, as they have in the past.  The Committee also felt that an eight-
year cycle is consistent with the Performance and Accountability Commission’s
recommendation that appellate case weights be recalibrated every four years.
Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 10.
We approve the recommended eight-year review cycle, but have modified
subdivision (b) to recognize that a review will be undertaken this year, as
explained below.
•  Assessment Committee and Review Schedule
Subdivision (b) also provides for the appointment by the Chief Justice of a
review committee that will assess the degree to which the district courts are able to
fulfill their mission, using the criteria set out in subdivision (d) of the rule.  The
Chief Justice will appoint an assessment committee, composed of one district
judge, one circuit judge, and one attorney from each district, by August 31 of the
- 12 -

year prior to the review year.   The Chief Justice also will designate the committee
chair.  Staff support to the assessment committee will be provided by the Office of
the State Courts Administrator in consultation with the clerks and marshals of the
district courts.
The assessment committee must submit its report by July 1 of the review
year.  By November 15 of the review year, the Court must certify to the Legislature
its findings and recommendations.
•                                                                                      2006 Review
The proposed review schedule outlined above notwithstanding, we direct
that a review by the District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction
Assessment Committee be undertaken immediately.10  The 2006 review will be
conducted in accordance with the criteria, factors, and certification process
outlined in the new rule and discussed below.  The 2006 Assessment Committee
will report its recommendations to the Chief Justice by November 15, 2006.  The
Court recognizes that this represents a highly compressed time frame in relation to
the review schedule outlined in the new rule.  However, because data and related
research used by the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee are available for the
Assessment Committee, the Court is confident that an expedited schedule is
10.   The Chief Justice will immediately appoint a committee to carry out this
directive.
- 13 -

achievable.  Subsequent reviews will be governed by the schedule set out in
subdivision (b) of the new rule.
•  Certification Process
The certification process is addressed in subdivision (c) of the rule.  This
subdivision recognizes that “[t]he certification process balances the potential
impact and disruption caused by changes in appellate districts against the need to
address circumstances that limit the quality and efficiency of, and public
confidence in, the appellate review process.”  As modified by the Court, this
subdivision also requires that
prior to recommending a change in districts, the assessment
committee and the supreme court shall consider less disruptive
adjustments including, but not limited to, the addition of judges, the
creation of branch locations, geographic or subject-matter divisions
within districts, deployment of new technologies, and increased ratios
of support staff per judge.
The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee recognized that the realignment
of appellate districts is inherently disruptive to the courts, the legal community,
and the public.  As the Committee explained, “The transfer of a judicial circuit
from one district to another subjects the residents of the circuit to a period of
transition in the venue of appeals, as well as a transitional period regarding the
controlling law in areas of the law where there is conflict between or among
districts.  Thus, realignment is unsettling not only for the district courts, but for the
- 14 -

circuit courts and the judges, parties and attorneys within them as well.”  Workload
and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 11.
The addition of a sixth, and possibly seventh, appellate district also could
have consequences not noted by the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee.   A
primary component of this Court’s discretionary review jurisdiction is its article V,
section 3(b)(3) jurisdiction to review district court decisions that expressly and
directly conflict with decisions of other district courts or this Court.  The addition
of one or more district courts would increase the number of conflicts in the law that
would exist until resolved by this Court, likely resulting in an increase in the
number of petitions for discretionary review filed in this Court in both certified
conflict and express and direct conflict cases.11
As adopted, subdivision (c) recognizes that in order to avoid disruption, the
assessment committee and the Court should consider adjustments less drastic than
the reorganization of the appellate districts.  The Court determined that this
cautionary language, which was originally included in the committee note to the
rule, should be included in the rule itself to ensure that the decision to create
another appellate district is undertaken only as a last resort when it is clear that the
11.   See National Center for State Courts, Appellate Court Performance
Standards and Measures 2 (1999) (noting that “[n]ationwide increases in the
number of trial and intermediate appellate courts have increased the potential for
conflicting interpretations of procedural rules and substantive law”).
- 15 -

current appellate courts are not functioning effectively and efficiently, and no other
options are reasonably available, including the addition of judges or the creation of
branch courthouses.
Subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the rule articulate this Court’s role in
determining whether a change to the appellate districts is necessary or merely
desirable.  These subdivisions provide:
(1)   The supreme court shall certify a necessity to increase,
decrease, or redefine appellate districts when it determines that the
appellate review process is adversely affected by circumstances that
present a compelling need for the certified change.
(2)   The supreme court may certify a necessity to increase,
decrease, or redefine appellate districts when it determines that the
appellate review process would be improved significantly by the
certified change.
According to the Committee, these provisions are based in part on the
Constitution’s use of the terms “need” and “necessity” when defining the Court’s
authority to establish uniform criteria for determinations under article V, section 9:
The supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for
the determination of the need for additional judges except
supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the number
of judges and for increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate
districts. If the supreme court finds that a need exists for . . .
increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts . . . , it
shall, prior to the next regular session of the legislature, certify
to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning
such need.
(Emphasis added.)    The Committee determined that the use of the term
“necessity” suggests that a more restrictive standard is to be used by the Court
- 16 -

when recommending that appellate districts be redefined than when certifying the
need for additional judges.  Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Report at 12.
The two standards set forth in subdivision (c) recognize the Court’s obligation to
recommend a change to the appellate districts when circumstances compel, but
also recognize the Court’s discretion to recommend a change when improvements
are needed.
•  Review Criteria:
The assessment committee will evaluate the extent to which the district
courts are fulfilling their mission as defined by the traditional goals of the appellate
process: independent review, correction of errors, and the development of
consistency and clarity in the law.  See Committee on District Court of Appeal
Performance and Accountability, Judicial Management Council, Report and
Recommendations 2 (1999) (articulating mission statement for Florida district
courts).  The assessment committee also will be guided by the Florida judicial
branch vision statement which expresses the essential values to which Florida’s
courts aspire as they perform their respective functions: “Justice in Florida will be
accessible, fair, effective, responsive and accountable.”  Id. at 12.
We agree with the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee’s recommendation
that the assessment committee should use recognized methodologies that focus not
only on caseloads but also on court functionality and outcomes.  Consistent with
- 17 -

this “outcomes-based” approach, under subdivision (d), Criteria, the assessment
committee must evaluate the district courts and make its recommendations on
whether to increase, decrease, or redefine the appellate districts based on the
following criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility to appellate review,
professionalism, and conduciveness to public trust and confidence.   Each criterion
is accompanied by several specific factors to determine whether the criterion has
been met.
The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee recognized that because “justice
is an inherently qualitative concept,” the defined criteria will not always be easily
quantified.  However, we agree with the Committee that with the use of established
quantitative methodologies and the application of qualitative research methods, the
assessment criteria, when viewed as a whole, “will allow an objective observer to
determine whether the district courts are fulfilling their mission.”  Workload and
Jurisdiction Committee Report at 16.
CONCLUSION
The Court thanks the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee for its hard
work and dedication in developing and submitting its recommendations in a timely
manner and for the Committee members’ diligent service to the citizens of this
State.  The Committee’s well-reasoned recommendations have provided this Court
with objective, performance-based criteria for assessing our district courts and a
- 18 -

certification process designed to assist the Court in ensuring that the district courts
are able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities as the primary appellate courts in
this State.
Accordingly, we approve the Workload and Jurisdiction Committee’s
recommendations and adopt new Rule of Judicial Administration 2.036, as set
forth in the appendix to this opinion.   The committee notes are offered for
explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rule.  The new rule
shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
Original Proceeding - Rule of Judicial Administration 2.036
Honorable Chris W. Altenbernd, Chair, Committee on District Court of Appeal
Workload and Jurisdiction, Tampa, Florida, Honorable Winifred J. Sharp, Chair,
Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Daytona Beach, Florida, John F.
Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and J. Craig Shaw, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar,
Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
- 19 -

APPENDIX
Rule 2.036.  Determination of the Necessity to Increase, Decrease, or Redefine
Appellate Districts
(a)                                                                                      Statement of Purpose.   The purpose of this rule is to establish
uniform criteria for the supreme court’s determination of necessity for increasing,
decreasing, or redefining appellate districts as required by Article V, section 9, of
the Florida constitution.  This rule also provides for an assessment committee and a
certification process to assist the court both in certifying to the legislature its
findings and recommendations concerning such need and in making its own rules
affecting appellate court structure and jurisdiction.
(b)      Assessment Committee.  At least once during every eight-year
period, beginning after review year 2006, the chief justice shall appoint a
committee that shall assess the capacity of the district courts to effectively fulfill
their constitutional and statutory duties. The committee shall make a
recommendation to the supreme court concerning the decisions that it should make
during the process described in subdivision (c).
(1)   The assessment committee shall consist of three members from
each district:  one attorney, one district judge, and one circuit judge.
(2)   The committee should be appointed no later than August 31 of the
year prior to the review year.  It must report its recommendations to the chief
justice in writing no later than July 1 of the review year.
(3)   The chief justice shall select the chair of the committee.
(4)   Prior to the preparation of its report, the committee shall solicit
written input from the public and shall hold at least one public hearing.
(5)   The Office of the State Courts Administrator, in consultation with
the clerks and marshals of the district courts of appeal, shall provide staff support
to the committee.
(6)   The chief justice shall submit the committee’s recommendations
to the supreme court.  On or before November 15 of the review year, the supreme
court shall certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations.
- 20 -

(c)                                                                                    Certification Process. The certification process balances the potential
impact and disruption caused by changes in appellate districts against the need to
address circumstances that limit the quality and efficiency of, and public
confidence in, the appellate review process.   Given the impact and disruption that
can arise from any alteration in judicial structure, prior to recommending a change
in districts, the assessment committee and the supreme court shall consider less
disruptive adjustments including, but not limited to, the addition of judges, the
creation of branch locations, geographic or subject-matter divisions within
districts, deployment of new technologies, and increased ratios of support staff per
judge.
(1)   The supreme court shall certify a necessity to increase, decrease,
or redefine appellate districts when it determines that the appellate review process
is adversely affected by circumstances that present a compelling need for the
certified change.
(2)   The supreme court may certify a necessity to increase, decrease,
or redefine appellate districts when it determines that the appellate review process
would be improved significantly by the certified change.
(d)      Criteria.  The following criteria shall be considered by the supreme
court and the assessment committee:
(1)   Effectiveness.  The factors to be considered for this criterion are
the extent to which:
(A)  each court expedites appropriate cases;
(B)  each court’s workload permits its judges to prepare written
opinions when warranted;
(C)  each court  functions in a collegial manner;
(D)  each court’s workload permits its judges to develop,
clarify, and maintain consistency in the law within that district, including
consistency between written opinions and per curiam affirmances without written
opinions;
- 21 -

(E)  each court’s workload permits its judges to harmonize
decisions of their court with those of other district courts or to certify conflict when
appropriate;
(F)  each court’s workload permits its judges to have adequate
time to review all decisions rendered by the court;
(G)  each court is capable of accommodating changes in statutes
or case law impacting workload or court operations; and
(H)  each court’s workload permits its judges to serve on
management committees for that court and the judicial system.
(2)   Efficiency.  The factors to be considered for this criterion are the
extent to which:
(A)  each court stays current with its caseload, as indicated by
measurements such as the clearance rate;
(B)  each court adjudicates a high percentage of its cases within
the time standards set forth in the Rules of Judicial Administration and has
adequate procedures to ensure efficient, timely disposition of its cases; and
(C)  each court utilizes its resources, case management
techniques, and other technologies to improve the efficient adjudication of cases,
research of legal issues, and preparation and distribution of decisions.
(3)   Access to Appellate Review.   The factors to be considered for
this criterion are the extent to which:
(A)  litigants, including self-represented litigants, have
meaningful access to a district court for mandatory and discretionary review of
cases, consistent with due process;
(B)  litigants are afforded efficient access to the court for the
filing of pleadings and for oral argument when appropriate; and
(C)  orders and opinions of a court are available in a timely and
efficient manner.
- 22 -

(4)   Professionalism.  The factors to be considered for this criterion
are the extent to which:
(A)  each court’s workload permits its judges to have adequate
time and resources to participate in continuing judicial education opportunities and
to stay abreast of the law in order to maintain a qualified judiciary;
(B)  each court is capable of recruiting and retaining qualified
staff attorneys, clerk’s office staff, and other support staff; and
(C)  each court’s staff has adequate time to participate in
continuing education and specialized training opportunities.
(5)   Public Trust and Confidence.  The factors to be considered for
this criterion are the extent to which:
(A)  each court’s workload permits its judges to have adequate
time to conduct outreach to attorneys and the general public within the district;
(B)  each court provides adequate access to oral arguments and
other public proceedings for the general public within its district;
(C)  each court’s geographic territory fosters public trust and
confidence;
(D)  each court’s demographic composition fosters public trust
and confidence; and
(E)  each court attracts an adequate, diverse group of well-
qualified applicants for judicial vacancies within its district, including applicants
from all circuits within the district.
District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Notes
2006 Adoption.  Article V, section 9 of the Florida constitution states that:
The supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for
the determination of the need for additional judges except
supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the number
- 23 -

of judges and for increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate
districts. If the supreme court finds that a need exists for . . .
increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts . . . , it
shall, prior to the next regular session of the legislature, certify
to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning
such need.
(Emphasis added.)  Thus, the constitution uses only “need” when describing the
uniform criteria for certifying additional judges, but uses both “necessity” and
“need” when describing the uniform criteria for increasing, decreasing, or
redefining appellate districts.  The supreme court has never determined whether
this language compels differing tests for the two certifications.  Subdivision (c) of
this rule uses the phrase “certify a necessity.”  The Committee on District Court of
Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction determined that the two standards set forth in
that subdivision recognize the supreme court’s obligation to recommend a change
to the structure of the district courts when circumstances reach the level of
necessity that compels a change, but also recognize the court’s discretion to
recommend a change to the structure of the district courts when improvements are
needed.
The criteria set forth in this rule are based on studies of the workload,
jurisdiction, and performance of the appellate courts, and the work of the
Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction in 2005.  In
establishing these criteria, substantial reliance was placed on empirical research
conducted by judicial branch committees and on other statistical data concerning
cases, caseloads, timeliness of case processing, and manner for disposition of
cases, collected by the Office of the State Courts Administrator Office as required
by section 25.075, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.030(e)(2).
The workload and jurisdiction committee considered the impact of computer
technology on appellate districts.  It is clear that, at this time or in the future,
technology can be deployed to allow litigants efficient access to a court for filing
of pleadings and for participation in oral argument, and that it can expand the
general public’s access to the courts.  It is possible that technology will
substantially alter the appellate review process in the future and that appellate
courts may find that technology permits or even requires different districting
techniques.  This rule was designed to allow these issues to be addressed by the
assessment committee and the supreme court without mandating any specific
approach.
- 24 -

The five basic criteria in subdivision (d) are not listed in any order of priority.
Thus, for example, the workload and jurisdiction committee did not intend
efficiency to be a more important criterion than engendering public trust and
confidence.
Subdivision (d)(2)(A) recognizes that the court currently provides the
legislature with an annual measurement of the appellate courts’ “clearance rate,”
which is the ratio between the number of cases that are resolved during a fiscal
year and the new cases that are filed during the same period.  Thus, a clearance rate
of one hundred percent reflects a court that is disposing of pending cases at
approximately the same rate that new cases arrive.   Given that other measurements
may be selected in the future, the rule does not mandate sole reliance on this
measurement.
Subdivision (d)(5)(E) recognizes that a district court’s geographic territory may
be so large that it limits or discourages applicants for judicial vacancies from
throughout the district and creates the perception that a court’s judges do not
reflect the makeup of the territory.
- 25 -

Download sc06-01.pdf