Christopher Michael Lewis v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL LEWIS,
Petitioner,

Vv.

STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,
Respondent.

No. 4D2026-0327
[May 6, 2026]

Petition for writ of certiorari the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Lillian B. Ewen, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 312025APOOOO001AXXXVB.

Christopher Michael Lewis, Naples, pro se.

Kathy A. Jimenez-Morales, Chief Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Tallahassee, for
respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Christopher Michael Lewis filed a second-tier petition for writ
of certiorari seeking to quash a circuit court’s opinion affirming a hearing
officer’s adjudication of civil traffic infractions. Substantively, petitioner
argued on appeal that the hearing officer violated Florida Rule of Traffic
Court 6.130, which prohibits hearing officers from adjudicating civil
infractions issued in conjunction with criminal offenses. See also §
318.32(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2025). The circuit appellate court affirmed the
hearing officer’s adjudications and cited Applegate v. Barnett Bank of
Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (explaining that a trial
court’s decision should be affirmed when the appellant fails to produce an
adequate record to demonstrate reversible error).

We grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s decision. See Kirrie
v. Indian River Cnty. Code Enft Bd., 104 So. 3d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA
2012) (granting petition where the circuit appellate court denied appellants

due process by affirming an administrative decision without ruling on their
pending motion to supplement the record).

Pertinently, while petitioner’s appeal was pending, he filed a motion to
supplement the appellate record to include an exhibit from the lower court
docket that he had attached to his initial brief to support his argument.
The circuit appellate court did not rule on that motion, and the state
argued petitioner had failed to present a sufficient appellate record,
including a transcript from the proceedings before the hearing officer.

After the circuit court affirmed, citing Applegate, petitioner moved for
rehearing, arguing the court overlooked his motion to supplement the
record with his “exhibit” and that no transcript was needed. The court
denied that motion without explanation.

As this court recognizes, second-tier certiorari review is “extraordinarily
limited, and narrow in scope.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CC
Chiropractic, LLC, 245 So. 3d 755, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting
Advanced Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr. Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 103 So.
3d 866, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). “Review is limited to whether the circuit
court afforded procedural due process and whether it applied the correct
law, or stated another way, whether the court departed from a clearly
established principle of law.” Id.

A party’s procedural due process rights are violated when a circuit
appellate court reviews an incomplete record. Kirrie, 104 So. 3d at 1179-
80. We have granted second-tier certiorari relief when the circuit appellate
court failed to comply with the appellate rule governing correcting and
supplementing the appellate record. See id.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(f)(2) (“No
proceeding will be determined, because of an incomplete record, until an
opportunity to supplement the record has been given.”); see also Cook v.
City of Winter Haven Police Dep’t, 837 So. 2d 492, 494-95 (Fla. 2d DCA
2003) (granting petition where petitioners were denied procedural due
process when the court dismissed a petition without ruling on a motion to
amend it to include an appendix); DSA Marine Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Cnty.
of Manatee, 661 So. 2d 907, 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (granting certiorari
petition where reviewing court failed to afford movants procedural due
process by refusing them an opportunity to amend their petition to include
an appendix).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s
appellate decision.

Petition granted.

KUNTZ, C.J., MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.