i i

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF -lt rrl ct I - - -fmiddot

FOURTH DISTRICT

PIERRE DOMVILLE c

--- j tPetitioner SCI 3- _c 11

v Case No 4D12i-556g i C STATE OF FLORIDA

Respondent____________________________1 NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION

NOTICE IS GIVEN that The State of Florida invokes the

discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida to

review the decision of this Court rendered ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION on January 16 2013 The decision

pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9030(a) (2) (A) (v)

certified a question of great public importance to be answered by

the Court The Supreme Courts jurisdiction is invoked under

article V section 3b) (4) of the Florida Constitution

Respectfully submitted

PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney General lb

JAN 242013CLERK DlSTRI[T COURT OF APPEAL

FOURTH DISTRICT -

Suite 900 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone (561) 837-5000 Facsimile (561) 837-5108 CrimAppWPBMyFloridaLegalcom

T lahassee Florida

Senior Assist Florida Bar N 1515 North Fl

General

-

Courisel for Respondent

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a pdf copy of the foregoing Notice to

Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction has been furnished bye-mail to

DANZLE G LATTY ESQUIRE 746 NE 3d Avenue Fort Lauderdale FL

33304 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER at Denzle lattydlattylawlaquocom this

23rd day of January 2013

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Tenn 2012

PIERRE DOMVILLE Petitioner

v

STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent

No4DI2-556

[September 5 2012]

PER CURIAM

In this case we consider a criminal defendants effort to disqualify a judge whom the defendant alleges is a Facebook friend of the prosecutor assigned to his case Finding that grounds for disqualification exist we grant the petition for writ of prohibition

Petitioner Pierre Domville moved to disqualify the trial judge The motion was supported by an affidavit averring that the prosecutor handling the case and the trial judge are Facebook friends This relationship caused Domville to believe that the judge could not be fair and impartial Domville explained that he was a Facebook user and that his friends consisted only of [his] closest friends and associates persons whom [he] could not perceive with anything but favor loyalty and partiality The affidavit attributed adverse rulings to the judges Facebook relationship with the prosecutor The trial judge denied the motion as legally insufficient

In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify the trial

judge this court reviews the motions allegations under a de novo standard See Peterson fl Asklipious 833 So 2d 262 263 (Fla 4th DCA 2002) Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2330(f) requires a judge to grant disqualification if the motion to disqualify is legally sufficient A motion is legally sufficient if the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial Brofman fl Fla Hearing Care Ctr Inc 703 So 2d 1191 1192 (Fla 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Hayslip fl Douglas 400 So 2d 553 556 (Fla 4th DCA A mere subjective fear[ ] of

bias will not be legally sufficient rather the fear must be objectively reasonable Fischer v Knuck 497 So 2d 240 242 (Fla 1986)

We find an opinion of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee to be instructive See Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 (Nov 17 2009) There the Committee concluded that the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct precludes a judge from both adding lawyers who appear before the judge as friends on a social networking site and allowing lawyers to add the judge as their friend The Committee determined that a judges listing of a lawyer as a friend on the judges social networking page-[t]o the extent that such identification is available for any other person to view-would violate Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2B (A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge) See Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 The committee found that three elements are necesswy in order to fall within the prohibition of Canon 2B

1 The judge must establish the social networking page

2 The site must afford the judge the right to accept or reject contacts or friends onthe judges page or denominate the judge as a friend on another members page

3 The identity of the friendsmiddot or contacts selected by the judge and the judges having denominated himself or herself as a friend on anothers page must then be communicated to others

Id The committee noted that

Typically [the] third elementis (ulfilled because each of a judges friendsmiddot may see on the judges page who the judges other friends are friends of another user may see that the judge is also a friend of that user It is this selection and communication process the Committee believes that violates Canon 28 because the judge by so doing conveys or permits others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge

Id Further the Committee concluded that when a judge lists a lawyer who appears before him as a friend on his social networking page this reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer friends are in a special position to influence the judge Id See also Fla Code Jud Conduct Canon SA

middot2-

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Tenn 2012

PIERRE DOMVILLE Petitioner

v

STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent

No4DI2-556

[September 5 2012]

PER CURIAM

In this case we consider a criminal defendants effort to disqualify a judge whom the defendant alleges is a Facebook friend of the prosecutor assigned to his case Finding that grounds for disqualification exist we grant the petition for writ of prohibition

Petitioner Pierre Domville moved to disqualify the trial judge The motion was supported by an affidavit averring that the prosecutor handling the case and the trial judge are Facebook friends This relationship caused Domville to believe that the judge could not be fair and impartial Domville explained that he was a Facebook user and that his friends consisted only of [his] closest friends and associates persons whom [he] could not perceive with anything but favor loyalty and partiality The affidavit attributed adverse rulings to the judges Facebook relationship with the prosecutor The trial judge denied the motion as legally insufficient

In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify the trial

judge this court reviews the motions allegations under a de novo standard See Peterson fl Asklipious 833 So 2d 262 263 (Fla 4th DCA 2002) Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2330(f) requires a judge to grant disqualification if the motion to disqualify is legally sufficient A motion is legally sufficient if the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial Brofman fl Fla Hearing Care Ctr Inc 703 So 2d 1191 1192 (Fla 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Hayslip fl Douglas 400 So 2d 553 556 (Fla 4th DCA A mere subjective fear[ ] of

bias will not be legally sufficient rather the fear must be objectively reasonable Fischer v Knuck 497 So 2d 240 242 (Fla 1986)

We find an opinion of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee to be instructive See Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 (Nov 17 2009) There the Committee concluded that the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct precludes a judge from both adding lawyers who appear before the judge as friends on a social networking site and allowing lawyers to add the judge as their friend The Committee determined that a judges listing of a lawyer as a friend on the judges social networking page-[t]o the extent that such identification is available for any other person to view-would violate Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2B (A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge) See Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 The committee found that three elements are necesswy in order to fall within the prohibition of Canon 2B

1 The judge must establish the social networking page

2 The site must afford the judge the right to accept or reject contacts or friends onthe judges page or denominate the judge as a friend on another members page

3 The identity of the friendsmiddot or contacts selected by the judge and the judges having denominated himself or herself as a friend on anothers page must then be communicated to others

Id The committee noted that

Typically [the] third elementis (ulfilled because each of a judges friendsmiddot may see on the judges page who the judges other friends are friends of another user may see that the judge is also a friend of that user It is this selection and communication process the Committee believes that violates Canon 28 because the judge by so doing conveys or permits others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge

Id Further the Committee concluded that when a judge lists a lawyer who appears before him as a friend on his social networking page this reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer friends are in a special position to influence the judge Id See also Fla Code Jud Conduct Canon SA

middot2-

bias will not be legally sufficient rather the fear must be objectively reasonable Fischer v Knuck 497 So 2d 240 242 (Fla 1986)

We find an opinion of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee to be instructive See Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 (Nov 17 2009) There the Committee concluded that the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct precludes a judge from both adding lawyers who appear before the judge as friends on a social networking site and allowing lawyers to add the judge as their friend The Committee determined that a judges listing of a lawyer as a friend on the judges social networking page-[t]o the extent that such identification is available for any other person to view-would violate Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2B (A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge) See Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 The committee found that three elements are necesswy in order to fall within the prohibition of Canon 2B

1 The judge must establish the social networking page

2 The site must afford the judge the right to accept or reject contacts or friends onthe judges page or denominate the judge as a friend on another members page

3 The identity of the friendsmiddot or contacts selected by the judge and the judges having denominated himself or herself as a friend on anothers page must then be communicated to others

Id The committee noted that

Typically [the] third elementis (ulfilled because each of a judges friendsmiddot may see on the judges page who the judges other friends are friends of another user may see that the judge is also a friend of that user It is this selection and communication process the Committee believes that violates Canon 28 because the judge by so doing conveys or permits others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge

Id Further the Committee concluded that when a judge lists a lawyer who appears before him as a friend on his social networking page this reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer friends are in a special position to influence the judge Id See also Fla Code Jud Conduct Canon SA

middot2-

i

i 1 i

I

I

I

The issue however is not whether the lawyer actually is in a position to influence the judge but instead whether the proposed conduct the identification of the lawyer as a friend on the social networking site conveys the impression that the lawyer is in a position to influence the judge The Committee concludes that such identification in a public forum of a lawyer who may appear before the judge does convey this impression and therefore is not permitted

Fla JEAC Op 2009-20 Thus as the Committee recognized judges activity on a social networking site may undermine confidence in the judges neutrality Judges must be vigilant in monitoring their public conduct so as to avoid situations that will compromise the appearance of impartiality The Commentary to Canon 2A explains that being a judge necessarily limits a judges personal freedom

A judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance of impropriety A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judges conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinarY citizen and should do so freely and willingly

Fla Code Jud Conduct Canon 2A cmt

Because Domville has alleged facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial we quash the order denying disqualification of the trial judge and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

GROSS GERBER and LEVINE JJ concur

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit Broward County Andrew L Siegel Judge LT Case No 09-11910 CF10A

Denzle G Latty Fort Lauderdale for petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi Attorney General Tallahassee and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa Assistant Attorney General West Palm Beach for respondent

- 3 -

Not jfnal until disposition 01 timely flled motionlor rehearing

i I

- 4 -

I

I I

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLoRIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

January Tenn 2013

PIERRE DOMVILLE Petitioner

v

STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent

No 4012-556

[January 16 2013J

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM

We deny the motion for rehearing but grant the motion for certification Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9030(a)(2)(A)(v) we certify the following to be a question of great public importance

Where the presiding judge in a criminal case has accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend would a reasonably prqdent person fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted

GROSS and LEVINE JJ concur GROSS J concurs specially with opinion GERBER J concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion

GROSS J concurring specially

I concur in the certification of the question because I recognize that the ability to participate in social media is of great importance to many and there are disagreements between reasonable persons about the way that a judge may take part in social media sites such as Facebook I also concur in the denial of the motion for rehearing because I believe the case was correctly decided

Judges do not have the unfettered social freedom of teenagers Central to the publics confidence in the courts is the belief that fair decisions are rendered by an impartial tribunal Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance Unlike face to face social interaction an electronic blip on a social media site can become eternal in the electronic ether of the internet Posts on a Facebook page might be of a type that a judge should not consider in a given case The existence of a judges Facebook page might exert pressure on lawyers or litigants to take direct or indirect action to curry favor with the judge As we recognized in the panel opinion a person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on personal freedom

GERBER J concurring in part and dissenting in part

I in the majoritys denial of the states motion for rehearing I respectfully dissent from the majoritys granting of the states motion for certification of a question of great public importance

The majority does not provide its reasoning for its conclusion that the certified question is one of great public importance The only reasoning for its conclusion appears to be stated in the concurring opinion I disagree With the concurring opinions reasoning

The concurring opinion reasons that the ability of judges to participate in social media with attorneys who appear before them is of great importance to many However the concurring opinion does not cite any authority for that statement On the contrary as the concurring opinion recognizes common sense suggests that the public without question would appear to desire otherwise Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance [A] person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on persorial freedom

Our onginal panel opinion Domville v State 37 Fla L Weekly D2126(Fla 4th DCA Sept 5 2012) addressed the narrow issue which has led to the certified question We concluded that where the presiding judge in a criminal case had accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend a reasonably prudent defendant would fear that he or she could not receive a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted The occurrence of those

- 2 -

i 1 i

Not jfnal until disposition 01 timely flled motionlor rehearing

i I

- 4 -

I

I I

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLoRIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

January Tenn 2013

PIERRE DOMVILLE Petitioner

v

STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent

No 4012-556

[January 16 2013J

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM

We deny the motion for rehearing but grant the motion for certification Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9030(a)(2)(A)(v) we certify the following to be a question of great public importance

Where the presiding judge in a criminal case has accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend would a reasonably prqdent person fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted

GROSS and LEVINE JJ concur GROSS J concurs specially with opinion GERBER J concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion

GROSS J concurring specially

I concur in the certification of the question because I recognize that the ability to participate in social media is of great importance to many and there are disagreements between reasonable persons about the way that a judge may take part in social media sites such as Facebook I also concur in the denial of the motion for rehearing because I believe the case was correctly decided

Judges do not have the unfettered social freedom of teenagers Central to the publics confidence in the courts is the belief that fair decisions are rendered by an impartial tribunal Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance Unlike face to face social interaction an electronic blip on a social media site can become eternal in the electronic ether of the internet Posts on a Facebook page might be of a type that a judge should not consider in a given case The existence of a judges Facebook page might exert pressure on lawyers or litigants to take direct or indirect action to curry favor with the judge As we recognized in the panel opinion a person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on personal freedom

GERBER J concurring in part and dissenting in part

I in the majoritys denial of the states motion for rehearing I respectfully dissent from the majoritys granting of the states motion for certification of a question of great public importance

The majority does not provide its reasoning for its conclusion that the certified question is one of great public importance The only reasoning for its conclusion appears to be stated in the concurring opinion I disagree With the concurring opinions reasoning

The concurring opinion reasons that the ability of judges to participate in social media with attorneys who appear before them is of great importance to many However the concurring opinion does not cite any authority for that statement On the contrary as the concurring opinion recognizes common sense suggests that the public without question would appear to desire otherwise Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance [A] person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on persorial freedom

Our onginal panel opinion Domville v State 37 Fla L Weekly D2126(Fla 4th DCA Sept 5 2012) addressed the narrow issue which has led to the certified question We concluded that where the presiding judge in a criminal case had accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend a reasonably prudent defendant would fear that he or she could not receive a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted The occurrence of those

- 2 -

i 1 i

I

I I

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLoRIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

January Tenn 2013

PIERRE DOMVILLE Petitioner

v

STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent

No 4012-556

[January 16 2013J

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM

We deny the motion for rehearing but grant the motion for certification Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9030(a)(2)(A)(v) we certify the following to be a question of great public importance

Where the presiding judge in a criminal case has accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend would a reasonably prqdent person fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted

GROSS and LEVINE JJ concur GROSS J concurs specially with opinion GERBER J concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion

GROSS J concurring specially

I concur in the certification of the question because I recognize that the ability to participate in social media is of great importance to many and there are disagreements between reasonable persons about the way that a judge may take part in social media sites such as Facebook I also concur in the denial of the motion for rehearing because I believe the case was correctly decided

Judges do not have the unfettered social freedom of teenagers Central to the publics confidence in the courts is the belief that fair decisions are rendered by an impartial tribunal Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance Unlike face to face social interaction an electronic blip on a social media site can become eternal in the electronic ether of the internet Posts on a Facebook page might be of a type that a judge should not consider in a given case The existence of a judges Facebook page might exert pressure on lawyers or litigants to take direct or indirect action to curry favor with the judge As we recognized in the panel opinion a person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on personal freedom

GERBER J concurring in part and dissenting in part

I in the majoritys denial of the states motion for rehearing I respectfully dissent from the majoritys granting of the states motion for certification of a question of great public importance

The majority does not provide its reasoning for its conclusion that the certified question is one of great public importance The only reasoning for its conclusion appears to be stated in the concurring opinion I disagree With the concurring opinions reasoning

The concurring opinion reasons that the ability of judges to participate in social media with attorneys who appear before them is of great importance to many However the concurring opinion does not cite any authority for that statement On the contrary as the concurring opinion recognizes common sense suggests that the public without question would appear to desire otherwise Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance [A] person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on persorial freedom

Our onginal panel opinion Domville v State 37 Fla L Weekly D2126(Fla 4th DCA Sept 5 2012) addressed the narrow issue which has led to the certified question We concluded that where the presiding judge in a criminal case had accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend a reasonably prudent defendant would fear that he or she could not receive a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted The occurrence of those

- 2 -

i 1 i

Judges do not have the unfettered social freedom of teenagers Central to the publics confidence in the courts is the belief that fair decisions are rendered by an impartial tribunal Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance Unlike face to face social interaction an electronic blip on a social media site can become eternal in the electronic ether of the internet Posts on a Facebook page might be of a type that a judge should not consider in a given case The existence of a judges Facebook page might exert pressure on lawyers or litigants to take direct or indirect action to curry favor with the judge As we recognized in the panel opinion a person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on personal freedom

GERBER J concurring in part and dissenting in part

I in the majoritys denial of the states motion for rehearing I respectfully dissent from the majoritys granting of the states motion for certification of a question of great public importance

The majority does not provide its reasoning for its conclusion that the certified question is one of great public importance The only reasoning for its conclusion appears to be stated in the concurring opinion I disagree With the concurring opinions reasoning

The concurring opinion reasons that the ability of judges to participate in social media with attorneys who appear before them is of great importance to many However the concurring opinion does not cite any authority for that statement On the contrary as the concurring opinion recognizes common sense suggests that the public without question would appear to desire otherwise Maintenance of the appearance of impartiality requires the avoidance of entanglements and relationships that compromise that appearance [A] person who accepts the responsibility of being a judge must also accept limitations on persorial freedom

Our onginal panel opinion Domville v State 37 Fla L Weekly D2126(Fla 4th DCA Sept 5 2012) addressed the narrow issue which has led to the certified question We concluded that where the presiding judge in a criminal case had accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook friend a reasonably prudent defendant would fear that he or she could not receive a fair and impartial trial so that the defendants motion for disqualification should be granted The occurrence of those

- 2 -

i 1 i

facts in this case appears to be an isolated event and understandably so I see no basis to certify a question of great public importance1

I

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit Broward County Andrew L Siegel Judge LT Case No 0911910 CFIOA

Denzle O Latty Fort Lauderdale for petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi Attorney General Tallahassee and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa Assistant Attorney General West Palm Beach for respondent

bull I I

i I I I I

states motion for certification argued that this courts original panel opinion raised a question of great public importance because the opinion allegedly found unethical reprimanded and disqualified [a sitting Circuit Judge] based on a trumped up ethical violation without the Judge being given an opportunity to defend himself or take corrective measures of the ethical impropriety It should go without saying that an appellate opinion granting a petition challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify in no way suggests that the subject judge is unethical or has been reprimanded and we have not done so in this case Further it is well-established that [t]he judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify is directed shall determine only the legal of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged Fla R Jud Admin 2330(1) (2012) If the motion is legally sutncient the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action If any motion is legally insufficient an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered No other reason for denial shall be stated and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion Id

- 3 -

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD

WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA 33401 (561) 242-2000

JanutllV 29 2013

Re Pierre DomviUe v State ofFlorida Case No 4DI2-556 Trial Court No 09-1l910CFI0A Trial Court Judge Andrew L Siegel

Dear Mr Hall

cJ -lt I

() r fT1r)

co-- -I

C-(j)(=-T I

-) r j

gt Z N -0

- c

(J)

----- -- fTl LJ - r-lt

_1- J n 0 c J

J 0

Jgt --

- cr

Attached is a certified copy of a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Rule 9120 Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Attached also is this Courts opinion or decision relevant to this case

I _The filing fee prescribed by Section 25241(3) Florida Statutes was received by this court

and will be mailed

_The filing fee prescribed by Section 25241(3) Florida Statutes was not received by this court

_PetitionerAppellant has been previously detennined insolvent by the circuit court or our Court

_PetitionerAppellant has already filed and this court has granted petitionerappellants Motion to proceed without payment of costs in this case

No filing fee is required in the underlying case in this court because it was

_ A Summary Appeal (Rule 9141) 1__From the Unemployment Appeals Commission

I _ A Habeas Corpus Proceeding I case Other - State

Ifthere are any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact this Office

Sincerely

MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER Cle ofthe Court

______ _______

I llcreby certify tnat tlle above and foregoing is a true copy of instrument filed in my ofl1ce

MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER CLERK DISTRICT COU OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA TH D TRICT IJ

Per lAt]Deputy Clerk

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD

WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA 33401 (561) 242-2000

JanutllV 29 2013

Re Pierre DomviUe v State ofFlorida Case No 4DI2-556 Trial Court No 09-1l910CFI0A Trial Court Judge Andrew L Siegel

Dear Mr Hall

cJ -lt I

() r fT1r)

co-- -I

C-(j)(=-T I

-) r j

gt Z N -0

- c

(J)

----- -- fTl LJ - r-lt

_1- J n 0 c J

J 0

Jgt --

- cr

Attached is a certified copy of a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Rule 9120 Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Attached also is this Courts opinion or decision relevant to this case

I _The filing fee prescribed by Section 25241(3) Florida Statutes was received by this court

and will be mailed

_The filing fee prescribed by Section 25241(3) Florida Statutes was not received by this court

_PetitionerAppellant has been previously detennined insolvent by the circuit court or our Court

_PetitionerAppellant has already filed and this court has granted petitionerappellants Motion to proceed without payment of costs in this case

No filing fee is required in the underlying case in this court because it was

_ A Summary Appeal (Rule 9141) 1__From the Unemployment Appeals Commission

I _ A Habeas Corpus Proceeding I case Other - State

Ifthere are any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact this Office

Sincerely

MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER Cle ofthe Court

______ _______

I llcreby certify tnat tlle above and foregoing is a true copy of instrument filed in my ofl1ce

MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER CLERK DISTRICT COU OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA TH D TRICT IJ

Per lAt]Deputy Clerk

I llcreby certify tnat tlle above and foregoing is a true copy of instrument filed in my ofl1ce

MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER CLERK DISTRICT COU OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA TH D TRICT IJ

Per lAt]Deputy Clerk