IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
vs. Appeal No.01-5213-CI-88A
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG,
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Appellant’s Petition. Upon review of the Petition and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that the Petition is facially insufficient and does not demonstrate a preliminary basis for relief. See Fla. R. App. P. Rule 9.100(g),(h)(2001). The Petition does not provide any relevant facts to refute the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the hearing officer below, does not set forth the nature of the relief sought, and is not accompanied by an appendix as prescribed by Rule 9.220. See id.; see also Fla. R. App. P. Rule 9.100, Committee Notes (stating that the lack of supporting documents may be considered by the court in exercising its discretion not to issue an order to show cause); Dunn v. Sentry Insurance, 434 So.2d 45, 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)(finding that where the petitioner failed to provide appellate court with an appendix, petition for writ of certiorari was properly denied). Although the Appellant states that the Appellee failed to provide her with an audible tape, that does not excuse the Petition’s deficiencies as enumerated above.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this 23rd day of October 2001.
NANCY MOATE LEY
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Post Office Box 10626
St. Petersburg, FL 33733
Bob Miles, City of St. Petersburg
Construction Services and Permitting Division
175 5th Street North
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Pamela D. Cichon, Esquire
Assistant City Attorney
Post Office Box 2842
St. Petersburg, FL 33731
 Had the Petition otherwise provided adequate grounds for relief, the Appellant would have had to provide an audible recording as provided by its own code or conduct a de novo hearing. See Kelly v. State of Florida, 685 So.2d 1314, 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(finding that if state cannot produce an audible recording and the parties cannot present an adequate statement of the proceedings, the adjudications must be reversed and remanded for a hearing de novo); see also Scarborough v. State, 262 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1972)(entering an alternative writ of mandamus directing the lower court to show cause why Petitioner should not be furnished with record).