Court rules that DCAs have the final say in PCAS.

The recently adopted Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) cannot be used to get the Supreme Court to review a case where a district court of appeal has refused to issue an opinion or explanation when it decided an appeal.

The high court made that ruling September 2 in dismissing a request that it use its all writs authority to review a Second DCA ruling in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon, 856 So. 2d 998 (Fla 2d DCA 2003).

R.J. Reynolds had appealed a circuit court ruling, which the Second DCA rejected with an opinion reading "PER CURIAM Affirmed." The company then asked for a reheating, a reheating en bane, certification, and for issuance of a written opinion under Rule 9.330(a).

The appellate court rejected all those motions with a one-line ruling stating only that the motions were denied. R.J. Reynolds then petitioned the Supreme Court in its all writs jurisdiction and asked the court to "clarify the standards to be used by the district courts in ruling on a request for a written opinion" made under Rule 9.330(a).

In its unanimous per curiam opinion, the justices said that would constitute an end run around its constitutionally limited jurisdiction that prevents the court from reviewing DCA rulings issued without an opinion. The court also noted that Rule 9.330(a)--adopted after a special committee studied the per curiam affirm issue--specifically allowed a party to request a written opinion from the...