Dadswell v. State, 6221.

Decision Date11 May 1966
Docket NumberNo. 6221.,6221.
Citation186 So.2d 274
PartiesHonorable Jack E. DADSWELL, Justice of the Peace, District 1, Pinellas County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Hyman Phillips, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Page S. Jackson, County Atty., and Daniel N. Martin, Asst. County Atty., Clearwater, for appellant.

Lawrence E. Lyman, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

This appeal is taken from a writ of prohibition issued by the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, against appellant.

Appellant, a justice of the peace of Pinellas County, tried defendant Phillips for the crime of petit larceny, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months or by a fine not exceeding $300.00. At the conclusion of the trial, Phillips questioned appellant's power to try the case and demanded the case be transferred to the Civil and Criminal Court of Record for Pinellas County. Appellant refused to transfer the cause, found Phillips guilty and ordered presentence investigation. Phillips then filed a petition for writ of prohibition which was issued after a hearing thereon. Appellant was prohibited from proceeding further in the cause except as a committing magistrate on the ground that the criminal jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts in Pinellas County was limited to misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three months or by a fine not exceeding $100.00. This appeal followed.

The question to be answered here is what provision of § 37.01, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., applies to the justice of the peace courts of Pinellas County. Section 37.01 provides in pertinent part:

"Each justice of the peace in this state shall have:
* * * * * *
"(2) Jurisdiction, in counties having a population of over fifty thousand according to the last preceding state census and no county court or criminal court of record, to try and determine all misdemeanors committed in their respective districts punishable by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding six months.
"(3) Jurisdiction, in counties having a population of over fifty thousand according to the last preceding state census and a county court, to try and determine all misdemeanors committed in their respective districts punishable by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three months."

Until 1951, Pinellas County had a county court and the justice of the peace courts tried misdemeanors pursuant to § 37.01(3), Fla.Stats., F.S.A. Then the legislature, by special act, abolished the county court and created a civil and criminal court of record in the county. That act, Ch. 27258, Laws of Fla., 1951, provides:

"Section 1. There is hereby established in Pinellas County, Florida, a court to be known and designated as the Civil and Criminal Court of Record of Pinellas County, Florida.
"Section 2. Said Court shall have original jurisdiction in the following cases:
* * * * * *
"(d) This Court shall have criminal jurisdiction to try and determine all violations of the Criminal laws of the State of Florida constituting misdemeanors, which arise in Pinellas County, Florida.
* * * * * *
"Section 12. The County Court of Pinellas County, Florida is hereby abolished and all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
* * * * * *
"Section 14. Nothing contained in this Act shall affect or impair the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Courts in Pinellas County, or the Justices thereof, in any civil or criminal case, which is, under present law, within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Courts." (Emphasis supplied.)

Apparently the justice of the peace courts continued to try criminal cases pursuant to § 37.01(3), Fla.Stats., F.S.A., until 1959 when the attorney general of Florida advised the justices of the peace through a letter that he felt their jurisdiction was controlled by the provisions of § 37.01(2), Fla.Stats., F.S.A.

At the conclusion of the hearing on the writ of prohibition, the trial court found that the civil and criminal court of record created by Chapter 27258 was not equivalent to the constitutional "criminal court of record" referred to in § 37.01(2). This finding has not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bernhardt v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 9 Enero 1974
    ...99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258 (1930). It has also been said that 'practice' is the method of conducting litigation. Dadswell v. State ex rel. Phillips, 186 So.2d 274 (Fla.App.2d 1966). 'The entire area of substance and procedure may be described as a 'twilight zone' and a statute or rule will be......
  • Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure., In re
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 6 Diciembre 1972
    ...99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258 (1930). It has also been said that "practice" is the method of conducting litigation. Dadswell v. State ex rel. Phillips, 186 So.2d 274 (Fla.App.2d 1966). The entire area of substance and procedure may be described as a "twilight zone" and a statute or rule will be ......
  • Wohl v. Harry Rich Corp., 79-2084
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 1 Julio 1980
    ...v. Federal Realty Corporation, 104 Fla. 93, 139 So. 209 (1932); Vassar v. State, 139 Fla. 213, 190 So. 434 (1939); Dadswell v. State, 186 So.2d 274 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); Joe Hatton, Inc. v. Conner, 247 So.2d 782 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); CIC Leasing Corp. v. Dade Linen and Furniture Co., 279 So.2d 7......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT