Caverly v. State, 82-2793
| Decision Date | 13 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2793,82-2793 |
| Citation | 436 So.2d 191 |
| Parties | Russell G. CAVERLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and Michael E. Raiden, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Russell Caverly was charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages in violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1982). As charged, he was entitled to a jury trial under section 316.1934(4), Florida Statutes (1982). Given that he has requested a jury trial, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION
On motion for rehearing, the state seeks a clarification of our opinion concerning the procedural posture in which we reviewed the trial court's decision. The state further suggests that in granting appellant Russell G. Caverly a jury trial, our decision conflicts with our holding in State v. Whirley, 421 So.2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
As noted in our opinion, appellant was charged with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages in violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), and the county court denied his timely request for a jury trial.
As to the procedural posture: Appellant filed a petition in the circuit court seeking to prohibit the county court from trying him without first impanelling a jury to hear the case. The circuit court denied appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition, noting that if he was entitled to any relief it would be by a petition for writ of mandamus.
Caverly appealed. In our opinion, his petition to the circuit court set forth sufficient facts to warrant relief. Thus, the court should have treated the petition as if the correct remedy had been sought for a writ of mandamus. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(c)(3) and 9.040(c). Therefore, we treated his appeal as one from the circuit court's denial of Caverly's petition for relief and disposed of the matter on its merits.
As to whether our opinion conflicts with Whirley: First, we point out that Caverly was charged under section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). In State v. Whirley, Whirley was charged with violation of section 316.193(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
In Whirley the defendant was not extended a right to a jury trial by the charging statute, section 316.193(3). We held that defendant did not have a constitutional right to a trial by jury since she was charged with a petit offense as defined in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970).
In the case at bench, the defendant Caverly was charged with a violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). Just as in Whirley, Caverly does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial since this charge also constitutes a petit offense. See Baldwin. However, unlike Whirley, the legislature has now provided that any person who is charged under section 316.193(1)(a) with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired, whether in a municipality or not, shall be entitled to a trial by jury according to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See § 316.1934(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1982).
We recognize the state's concern that now a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on the charge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Bentley, 86-2064
...proceedings after denying Floyd's demand for a jury trial. We treat his petition as a petition for writ of mandamus. Caverly v. State, 436 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Alderman, 238 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); State ex rel. Shailer v. Booker, 241 So.......
-
Beshaw v. State
...(Fla.1988); State v. Brown, 527 So.2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bradley v. McDermott, 466 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Caverly v. State, 436 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); compare Hoffman v. Land, 55 So.2d 806 (Fla.1951); Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So.2d 1252, 1256 (Fla. 2d DC......
-
Diaz v. Singletary, 93-2756
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1993). His failure to select the appropriate remedy, without more, is not a proper reason to deny relief, Caverly v. State, 436 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We conclude that the allegations contained in appellant's petition are sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and ......
-
Barrett v. State, 2D06-4370.
...alleged sufficient facts to warrant relief and, if so, treated his motion as if the proper remedy had been sought. See Caverly v. State, 436 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding that where the defendant's petition requested the wrong remedy but alleged sufficient facts to warrant relief, t......