Marlon Kelly v. Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-1315
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1315 Lower Tribunal No. 24-74-AP-01 ________________

Marlon Kelly, Petitioner,

vs.

Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division, Ramiro C. Areces, Miguel De la O, and Daryl E. Trawick, Judges.

Marlon Kelly, in proper person.

Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Suzanne Villano-Charif, Assistant County Attorney, for Respondent.

Before MILLER, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Petitioner Marlon Kelly seeks second-tier certiorari review of a per

curiam affirmance from the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. He

had sought appellate review of an administrative decision suspending him

for five days from his employment with the Miami-Dade Corrections and

Rehabilitation Department. The County Mayor upheld the findings and

recommendations of a hearing examiner after a civil service quasi-judicial

evidentiary hearing.

In our limited review in these types of proceedings, we are confined to

determine “whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and

whether the circuit court applied the correct law.” Haines City Cmty. Dev. v.

Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995). At its core, we must determine

whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law.

Id. “Reviewing the record for substantial, competent evidence, however, is

outside the scope of our limited, second-tier certiorari review.” Seawatch at

Marathon Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Marathon, 390 So. 3d 184, 186 (Fla.

3d DCA 2024).

Finding the circuit court’s decision did not depart from the essential

requirements of the law, we deny the petition. Its decision was “made

according to the forms of [the] law and the rules prescribed for rendering it.”

2 Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1093 (Fla. 2010).

See also Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523, 526–27 (1882).

Petition denied.