Campbell v. Supreme Court of Florida, 28884 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 24 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 28884 Summary Calendar.,28884 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 428 F.2d 449 |
| Parties | Calvin C. CAMPBELL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Calvin C. Campbell, pro se.
Earl Faircloth. Atty. Gen., State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 24, 1970.
This is an appeal from the dismissal by the district court of an action by a state prisoner seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Supreme Court of Florida. We affirm.1
Appellant alleged that his appeal to the Florida Supreme Court from a judgment imposing the death penalty was heard by only five justices. The Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 3.10(g) (1), 33 F. S.A., require that appeals in capital cases be heard by the Supreme Court en banc (seven justices). Appellant also alleges that two of those five justices retired before the decision was rendered but concurred in the decision with the result that only three active justices concurred in the decision. Article V, § 4(1) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. provides that five justices shall constitute a quorum and that the concurrence of four supreme court justices is necessary to a decision.
The interpretation of the Florida State Constitution and the state's rules of appellate procedure are matters peculiarly within the province of the Florida Supreme Court. Appellant contends that the manner in which his appeal was handled by that court violated his federal right to due process. We cannot hold that an appellate hearing before five rather than seven justices and a decision concurred in by three rather than four active justices was so fundamentally unfair as to deprive appellant of due process.
Moreover, while appellant alleges a denial of equal protection, he makes no allegation as to how the Florida law has been unequally applied. The conclusory claim of unconstitutionality is not enough in and of itself to state a cause of action.
Appellant further alleges that one justice participating in his case should have been disqualified for conflict of interest on the ground that the justice is allegedly a director of a Florida bank. The murder for which appellant was convicted occurred when he was being arrested in connection with a bank robbery. Appellant argues that a bank director could not objectively sit in judgment on a case involving a bank robbery. We find the relationship to be so attenuated as to foreclose even the intimation of conflict of interest or the appearance of bias. Appellant's contention on this point thus fails.
It is finally contended that the members of the Florida Supreme Court are disqualified from sitting on that court because their outside activities for remuneration violate the judicial code of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massey v. Thiokol Chemical Corporation
...federal Constitution. Conclusory allegations as to unconstitutionality are not enough to support such a claim. Campbell v. Supreme Court of Florida, 428 F.2d 449 (5th Cir.). However, I think the constitutional attack here is sufficiently explicit. This is especially so in the light of the o......
-
Perschka v. Brierley, Civ. A. No. 71-52.
...of state laws and procedural rules are matters particularly suitable to determination by the state's highest court. Campbell v. Supreme Court of Florida, 428 F.2d 449, C.A. 5, 1970. While in the absence of a decision by a state's highest court, the federal court may independently find what ......
-
Matter of Crisp, Bankruptcy No. 82-02162-2-3.
...not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption."\' Campbell v. Supreme Court of Florida, 428 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir.1970), quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). So it may be concluded t......
-
McGough v. State, s. 72--861
...with. Even a death penalty case allegedly heard by only five justices presented no due process violation. Campbell v. Supreme Court of Florida, 5th Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 449. Our practice has been to schedule reargument where there is some useful purpose to be accomplished by it. There is non......