“In general, an appellate court may review only those questions properly presented to the trial court. Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1957). Proper presentation requires a contemporaneous objection. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978
How later courts described this case
- “In general, an appellate court may review only those questions properly presented to the trial court. Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1957). Proper presentation requires a contemporaneous objection. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 26, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-2048
Lower Tribunal No. 21-002670TTS
________________
Yewande Smith,
Appellant,
vs.
Miami-Dade County School Board,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Yewande Smith, in proper person.
Walter J. Harvey, General Counsel, and Christopher J. La Piano,
Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
EMAS, J.
Yewande Smith appeals from a final order of the Miami-Dade County
School Board, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth
in the Recommended Order of Administrative Law Judge Darren A.
Schwartz, following a two-day hearing.
The final order sustained Smith’s demotion from the rank of sergeant
with the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department (MDSPD) to school
resource officer, concluding that the School Board had just cause to demote
Smith for violation of several MDSPD Standard Operating Procedures and
School Board Policy.
In G.R. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 315 So. 3d 107, 108
(Fla. 3d DCA 2020) this court explained our standard of review of an agency
order:
We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo and we
review the record to determine whether competent substantial
evidence supports the agency's decision. A.C. v. Agency for
Health Care Admin., [322 So. 3d 1182, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA
2019)]. In doing so, “we give no deference to agency
interpretations of statutes or rules.” Id. (citing MB Doral, LLC v.
Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages &
Tobacco, 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (noting: “With
the passage of article V, section 21 of the Florida Constitution,
the previously afforded deference to the agency's interpretation
of the statutes it implements has been abolished; our review is
de novo.”)). See also M.T. v. Agency for Persons with
Disabilities, 212 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); A.W. v. Agency
for Persons with Disabilities, 288 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
2
On appeal, Smith contends generally that the trial court “unknowingly
became a victim of fraud” because the School Board did not follow or
complete “the required demotion policy and procedure” thus violating Smith’s
due process rights; and the trial court “made several statutory and factual
errors in [its] recommended order including basing its decision on the wrong
Florida [] Statutes.”
Upon our review, we find no error and affirm. See § 120.68(7), Fla.
Stat. (2021) (establishing the parameters of appellate review of the school
board’s action, providing in pertinent part: “The court shall remand a case to
the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court’s decision or set
aside agency action, as appropriate, when it finds that: . . . (b) The agency's
action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent,
substantial evidence in the record of a hearing conducted pursuant to ss.
120.569 and 120.57; however, the court shall not substitute its judgment for
that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding
of fact; (c) The fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action
may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow
prescribed procedure . . . .”); Griffith v. Dep’t of Bus. Regul., Div. of Pari-
Mutuel Wagering, 613 So. 2d 930, 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("It is axiomatic
that where substantial competent evidence supports the findings and
3
conclusions of the administrative agency and the record discloses neither an
abuse of discretion nor a violation of law by the agency, this court should not
overturn the agency's determination.") (quoting Cohen School Bd. of Dade
Cnty., Fla., 450 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)); see also Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co. v. Off. of Ins. Regul., 981 So. 2d 617, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA
2008) (explaining that in administrative proceedings, the due process
requirements of the Florida and Federal Constitutions are satisfied if the
accused is informed of the charges against her, has a reasonable opportunity
to defend against those charges and the proceedings are conducted in a fair
and impartial manner); Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1982)
(“In general, an appellate court may review only those questions properly
presented to the trial court. Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1957).
Proper presentation requires a contemporaneous objection. Castor v. State,
365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978). Under the test established in Castor, an objection
must be specific enough ‘to apprise the trial judge of the putative error and
to preserve the issue for intelligent review on appeal.’”) (additional quotations
omitted); Velazquez v. S. Fla. Fed. Credit Union, 89 So. 3d 952, 956 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2012) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.200 and noting that an appellate court
cannot consider extra-record materials); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 511 So.
2d 593, 595 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“Appellate review is limited to the record
4
as made before the trial court at the time of the entry of a final judgment or
orders complained of. It is entirely inappropriate and subjects the movant to
possible sanctions to inject matters in the appellate proceedings which were
not before the trial court.”).
5