Supreme Court of Florida ______________
No. SC19-1907 ______________
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.
November 27, 2019
PER CURIAM.
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s
need for additional judges in fiscal year 2020/2021 and to certify our “findings and
recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida Legislature.1 Certification
is “the sole mechanism established by our constitution for a systematic and
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 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. uniform assessment of this need.” In re Certification of Need for Additional
Judges, 889 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2004).
In this opinion, we certify the need for two additional circuit court
judgeships in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, one additional circuit court judgeship in
the First Judicial Circuit, one additional circuit court judgeship in the Fourteenth
Judicial Circuit, four additional county court judgeships in Hillsborough County,
one additional county court judgeship in Orange County, one additional county
court judgeship in Lee County, and no additional judgeships in the district courts
of appeal. We decertify the need for two county court judgeships in Brevard
County, one county court judgeship in Monroe County, and one county court
judgeship in Collier County.
To make this decision, the Florida Supreme Court continues to use a verified
objective weighted caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial
need. 2 The objective data are supplemented by judgeship requests submitted by
the lower courts, including descriptions of the impact of various secondary factors.
These secondary factors identified by each chief judge reflect local differences in
support of their requests for more judgeships or in support of their requests for this
Court not to decertify judgeships in situations where the objective case weights
2. Our certification methodology relies primarily on case weights and calculations of available judge time to determine the need for additional trial court judges. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.240.
-2- alone would indicate excess judicial capacity. Applying the criteria in this two-
step methodology, we conclude that the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth circuits have a
demonstrable need for additional circuit judges. Using the same criteria, this Court
determines that the secondary factor analysis, coupled with recent statutory
amendments and other relevant circumstances further explained below, warrants a
more restrained approach to the decertification of trial court judgeships than the
raw numbers alone would indicate.
Our evaluation of these matters takes into account developments in the way
our courts perform their duties that are not currently captured by the weighted case
load methodology. We also consider not only recently adopted legislation but also
potential legislation and rule changes that could have a significant impact.
Chapter 2019-58, Laws of Florida, increased the maximum dollar amount in
controversy of cases under the jurisdiction of county courts. 3 The Legislature took
a phased approach to the implementation of this amendment. Effective January 1,
3. Section 34.01(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2019), states that county courts shall have original jurisdiction:
Of all actions at law, except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit courts, in which the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees: 1. If filed on or before December 31, 2019, the sum of $15,000. 2. If filed on or after January 1, 2020, the sum of $30,000. 3. If filed on or after January 1, 2023, the sum of $50,000.
-3- 2020, county court jurisdiction increases from a current upper limit of $15,000 to
$30,000 and is scheduled for a second upward adjustment to $50,000 on January 1,
2023. Although these changes necessarily will alter workload in the county and
circuit courts, precise estimates of the impact of these statutory revisions are not
possible at this time.
At the beginning of 2019, this Court established the Judicial Management
Council Workgroup on Appellate Review of County Court Decisions.4 We
directed the workgroup to study whether the circuit courts should be uniformly
required to hear appeals in panels, to review a previous recommendation with
regard to allowing intra- and inter-circuit conflicts in circuit court appellate
decisions to be certified to the district courts of appeal, and to consider whether
other changes to the process for appellate review of county court decisions would
improve the administration of justice. The Court has considered the report of that
workgroup, submitted in October of this year, and accepted its recommendations,
with some slight modifications. The Supreme Court supports the Legislature’s
consideration of legislation during the 2020 Regular Session to transfer to the
district courts of appeal the circuit courts’ appellate and related extraordinary writ
authority in county civil cases including non-criminal violations, county criminal
4. See In re Workgroup on Appellate Review of County Court Decisions, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC19-3 (Jan. 4, 2019).
-4- cases, and administrative cases. Further, we have expressed our support for an
effective date for the legislation that is no earlier than January 1, 2021, to allow
adequate time for judicial branch implementation. If the various statutes are
amended by the Legislature to implement these changes, the judicial workload in
the circuit courts and district courts will necessarily be affected.
Trial court judges have expressed concerns about a need to review and
possibly refine the method for reporting on the increased number and types of
problem-solving courts throughout the state and the increased number of cases
handled by those problem-solving courts. It is important for this Court, in its
assessment of judicial need, to evaluate the impact on judicial workload the
problem-solving courts create and, if necessary, update the associated case
weights. While problem-solving courts show positive results in reduced recidivism
and better outcomes in many cases, they also require significantly more judicial
time.
Finally, this Court is awaiting the results of an important review it has
ordered, which may lead to revision of the rules we employ to determine judicial
need. Specifically, this Court has directed the Commission on Trial Court
Performance and Accountability to review secondary factors impacting judicial
certification to determine if there are areas of inconsistency between the case
weights and current judicial assignments. The Commission is reviewing rules
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court of Florida ______________
No. SC19-1907 ______________
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.
November 27, 2019
PER CURIAM.
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s
need for additional judges in fiscal year 2020/2021 and to certify our “findings and
recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida Legislature.1 Certification
is “the sole mechanism established by our constitution for a systematic and
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 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. uniform assessment of this need.” In re Certification of Need for Additional
Judges, 889 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2004).
In this opinion, we certify the need for two additional circuit court
judgeships in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, one additional circuit court judgeship in
the First Judicial Circuit, one additional circuit court judgeship in the Fourteenth
Judicial Circuit, four additional county court judgeships in Hillsborough County,
one additional county court judgeship in Orange County, one additional county
court judgeship in Lee County, and no additional judgeships in the district courts
of appeal. We decertify the need for two county court judgeships in Brevard
County, one county court judgeship in Monroe County, and one county court
judgeship in Collier County.
To make this decision, the Florida Supreme Court continues to use a verified
objective weighted caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial
need. 2 The objective data are supplemented by judgeship requests submitted by
the lower courts, including descriptions of the impact of various secondary factors.
These secondary factors identified by each chief judge reflect local differences in
support of their requests for more judgeships or in support of their requests for this
Court not to decertify judgeships in situations where the objective case weights
2. Our certification methodology relies primarily on case weights and calculations of available judge time to determine the need for additional trial court judges. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.240.
-2- alone would indicate excess judicial capacity. Applying the criteria in this two-
step methodology, we conclude that the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth circuits have a
demonstrable need for additional circuit judges. Using the same criteria, this Court
determines that the secondary factor analysis, coupled with recent statutory
amendments and other relevant circumstances further explained below, warrants a
more restrained approach to the decertification of trial court judgeships than the
raw numbers alone would indicate.
Our evaluation of these matters takes into account developments in the way
our courts perform their duties that are not currently captured by the weighted case
load methodology. We also consider not only recently adopted legislation but also
potential legislation and rule changes that could have a significant impact.
Chapter 2019-58, Laws of Florida, increased the maximum dollar amount in
controversy of cases under the jurisdiction of county courts. 3 The Legislature took
a phased approach to the implementation of this amendment. Effective January 1,
3. Section 34.01(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2019), states that county courts shall have original jurisdiction:
Of all actions at law, except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit courts, in which the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees: 1. If filed on or before December 31, 2019, the sum of $15,000. 2. If filed on or after January 1, 2020, the sum of $30,000. 3. If filed on or after January 1, 2023, the sum of $50,000.
-3- 2020, county court jurisdiction increases from a current upper limit of $15,000 to
$30,000 and is scheduled for a second upward adjustment to $50,000 on January 1,
2023. Although these changes necessarily will alter workload in the county and
circuit courts, precise estimates of the impact of these statutory revisions are not
possible at this time.
At the beginning of 2019, this Court established the Judicial Management
Council Workgroup on Appellate Review of County Court Decisions.4 We
directed the workgroup to study whether the circuit courts should be uniformly
required to hear appeals in panels, to review a previous recommendation with
regard to allowing intra- and inter-circuit conflicts in circuit court appellate
decisions to be certified to the district courts of appeal, and to consider whether
other changes to the process for appellate review of county court decisions would
improve the administration of justice. The Court has considered the report of that
workgroup, submitted in October of this year, and accepted its recommendations,
with some slight modifications. The Supreme Court supports the Legislature’s
consideration of legislation during the 2020 Regular Session to transfer to the
district courts of appeal the circuit courts’ appellate and related extraordinary writ
authority in county civil cases including non-criminal violations, county criminal
4. See In re Workgroup on Appellate Review of County Court Decisions, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC19-3 (Jan. 4, 2019).
-4- cases, and administrative cases. Further, we have expressed our support for an
effective date for the legislation that is no earlier than January 1, 2021, to allow
adequate time for judicial branch implementation. If the various statutes are
amended by the Legislature to implement these changes, the judicial workload in
the circuit courts and district courts will necessarily be affected.
Trial court judges have expressed concerns about a need to review and
possibly refine the method for reporting on the increased number and types of
problem-solving courts throughout the state and the increased number of cases
handled by those problem-solving courts. It is important for this Court, in its
assessment of judicial need, to evaluate the impact on judicial workload the
problem-solving courts create and, if necessary, update the associated case
weights. While problem-solving courts show positive results in reduced recidivism
and better outcomes in many cases, they also require significantly more judicial
time.
Finally, this Court is awaiting the results of an important review it has
ordered, which may lead to revision of the rules we employ to determine judicial
need. Specifically, this Court has directed the Commission on Trial Court
Performance and Accountability to review secondary factors impacting judicial
certification to determine if there are areas of inconsistency between the case
weights and current judicial assignments. The Commission is reviewing rules
-5- 2.240(b)(1)(B) and 2.240(c), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, to determine
if there is a need to recommend any suggested modifications.
Having conducted a quantitative assessment of trial and appellate court
judicial workload and, as noted above, having also considered the various
qualitative factors, workload trends, legislatively enacted jurisdictional changes
and other relevant circumstances, we certify the need for ten additional trial court
judgeships in Florida, consisting of four circuit court judgeships and six county
court judgeships, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. We also recommend
the decertification of four county court judgeships, also identified in the appendix,
and we certify no need for additional judgeships in the district courts of appeal.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges
-6- APPENDIX Trial Court Need
Circuit Court County Court County Court Certified Certified Decertified Circuit Judges County Judges Judges 1 1 N/A 0 0 2 0 N/A 0 0 3 0 N/A 0 0 4 0 N/A 0 0 5 0 N/A 0 0 6 0 N/A 0 0 7 0 N/A 0 0 8 0 N/A 0 0 9 2 Orange 1 0 10 0 N/A 0 0 11 0 N/A 0 0 12 0 N/A 0 0 13 0 Hillsborough 4 0 14 1 N/A 0 0 15 0 N/A 0 0 16 0 Monroe 0 1 17 0 N/A 0 0 18 0 Brevard 0 2 19 0 N/A 0 0 Collier 0 1 20 0 Lee 1 0 Total 4 Total 6 4
-7-