Florida Case Law
PISTONE v. CITY OF PALM BAY, 5D06-2327 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.
12-22-2006) RICHARD J. PISTONE, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PALM
BAY AND DENISE A. BURGIN, Respondent. No. 5D06-2327.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed December 22, 2006.
Petition for Certiorari Review of Decision from the Circuit
Court for Brevard County Acting in its Appellate Capacity.
Richard J. Pistone, Fort Lauderdale, Pro Se.
Gary B. Sack, Reinman Matheson Vaughan Durham & Sack, P.A.,
for Respondent.
GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
We deny Richard Pistone’s petition for writ of certiorari.
Our review of a circuit court appellate decision is limited
to a determination of (1) whether the circuit court
afforded the parties procedural due process, and (2)
whether the circuit court applied the correct law (also
expressed as whether the essential requirements of the law
have been observed). See Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs,
658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995).
A departure from the essential requirements of the law
necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is
something more than simple legal error. Certiorari is not
used to grant a second appeal nor redress mere legal error.
Rather, it provides a safety net to correct a miscarriage
of justice when no other remedy is available. See Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003);
County of Volusia v. City of Deltona, 925 So. 2d 340, 343
(Fla. 5th DCA 2006). No miscarriage of justice is presented
here.
In the instant petition, Mr. Pistone has not demonstrated
either a violation of his procedural due process rights
below or the circuit court’s failure to apply the correct
law. It is clear from the circuit court’s opinion that Mr.
Pistone failed to provide an adequate record to support
reversal of the county court’s final judgment. In addition,
a review of Mr. Pistone’s motion to disqualify the county
court judge was based on adverse prior rulings and was,
therefore, legally inadequate.
CERTIORARI DENIED.