Supreme Court of Florida
______________
No. SC21-1543
______________
IN RE: REDEFINITION OF APPELLATE DISTRICTS AND
CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
APPELLATE JUDGES.
December 22, 2021
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
PER CURIAM.
I. Background
In In re Redefinition of Appellate Districts and Certification of
Need for Additional Appellate Judges, 46 Fla. L. Weekly S355 (Fla.
Nov. 24, 2021), this Court determined that a sixth appellate district
should be created in Florida and that accompanying changes
should be made to the existing boundaries of the First, Second, and
Fifth districts. 1 The Court also determined that six new appellate
1. Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in
pertinent part:
Determination of number of judges.—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
judgeships were needed for the continued effective operation of the
newly aligned district courts of appeal—specifically one in the
realigned Second District and five in the realigned Fifth District.
The Court made the determinations consistent with the final
report and recommendations of a Court-appointed assessment
committee charged with evaluating the necessity for increasing,
decreasing, or redefining the appellate districts. 2 Among other
things, the District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction
Assessment Committee recommended that no existing district court
judge’s position be decertified while that judge is in office and that
number of judges and for increasing, decreasing or
redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits. If the
supreme court finds that a need exists for increasing or
decreasing the number of judges or increasing,
decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial
circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and
recommendations concerning such need.
2. District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction
Assessment Committee Final Report and Recommendations
https://www.flcourts.org/DCA-Committee-Report. See also In re
District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment
Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC21-13 (May 6, 2021).
-2-
no existing district court judge have to change residence in order to
remain in office as a result of the realignment of districts.
II. Amended Certification of Additional Judges
In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the
State’s need for additional district court judges in fiscal year
2022/2023 and to certify our “findings and recommendations
concerning such need” to the Florida Legislature, 3 this opinion
amends the previously issued certification. Based on recent
changes in residency of judges, the Court hereby certifies the need
for seven rather than six additional district court judgeships,
bringing to 71 the total number of judges on the state’s district
courts of appeal. Under this revision, the seven judgeships are
allocated as follows: three in the realigned Second District and four
in the realigned Fifth District. This assessment continues to be
based on the assumption that each existing judge who resides
within a county that was proposed for assignment to a new district
court would be considered a judge of the new district court.
3. Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const.
-3-
We further certify that the creation of seven district court
judges, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, is necessary,
and we recommend that the Legislature enact the applicable laws
and appropriate funds so that the adjustments can be
implemented.
The Court makes no revisions to the previously certified
alignment of the jurisdictional boundaries of the six appellate
districts.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, and
COURIEL, JJ., concur.
GROSSHANS, J., concurs in result only.
POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion.
POLSTON, J., dissenting.
As I explained in my dissent to the majority’s November 24,
2021 opinion, no additional district court of appeal judges are
needed. None. Not six. Not seven. This revised certification makes
my point. It is based on where current judges live, not any objective
basis of a need for more judges to do the work.
Original Proceeding – Amended Certification of Need for Additional
Appellate Judges
-4-
APPENDIX
Amended District Court Need
District
Court
Certified
District Judges
1 0
2 3
3 0
4 0
5 4
6 0
Total 7
-5-
n Re: Redefinition of Appellate Districts and Certification of Need for Additional Appellate Judges
Combined Opinion