DePaulis v. Judges of Dist. Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., 55806
| Decision Date | 17 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 55806,55806 |
| Citation | 373 So.2d 663 |
| Parties | Anthony DePAULIS, Petitioner, v. The JUDGES OF the DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRICT, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jon H. Gutmacher, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondents.
This case is before us on petition for writ of mandamus. The petitioner seeks reversal of the district court's order that he must supply a copy of the trial transcript to the attorney general's office at his expense. We have jurisdiction. 1
DePaulis was convicted of a crime in the circuit court, Broward County. He is not indigent and is represented by private counsel. He filed a notice of appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, and obtained a supersedeas bond and stay from the trial court. He then filed designations to the court reporter to obtain transcripts of the proceedings in the trial court and ordered copies for himself and the district court but did not order a copy for the attorney general's office. The attorney general filed a motion to compel DePaulis to furnish a transcript to him on the grounds that in criminal appeals Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(d) specifically provides: "The clerk shall retain the original of the record and shall forthwith transmit copies thereof to the court, to the Attorney General"; Rule 9.200(a) (1) defines the record as "the original documents, exhibits, and transcript of proceedings, if any, filed in the lower tribunal"; and Rule 9.200(b)(1) provides that the "(c)osts of transcription shall be borne initially by the designating party." DePaulis objected on the ground that requiring him to pay for the state's transcript was a violation of article I, section 19, Florida Constitution, which provides: "No person charged with crime shall be compelled to pay costs before a judgment of conviction has become final." The district court granted the motion and ordered DePaulis to provide a trial transcript to the state. It is from this order that DePaulis seeks a writ of mandamus. For the reasons expressed, we agree with the district court.
The petitioner argues that article I, section 19, of the 1968 Florida Constitution, represented a substantive revision of Declaration of Rights, section 14, of the 1885 Florida Constitution. 2 The latter section had been interpreted in State ex rel. Davis v. Newman, 24 Fla. 33, 3 So. 467 (1888). In that case, this Court held that the words "final trial," in section 14 of the declaration of rights of the 1885 Florida Constitution, means a trial in the court having original trial jurisdiction of the case and does not apply to proceedings in an appellate court.
The petitioner asserts that the change in the constitutional language was substantive and intended to change the interpretation of the predecessor section made by this Court in State ex rel. Davis v. Newman. Relying on Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 808, 30 So.2d 304, 305 (1947), he alleges that the language forbidding compelled costs before "judgment of conviction has become final" means that no costs may be assessed until the judgment has been affirmed on appeal.
We disagree with the petitioner and hold that the change in the constitutional language was merely stylistic. None of the history pertaining to this provision reflects any intent to make a substantive change in the law. See T. D'Alemberte, Commentary, 25A Fla.Stat.Ann. 401 (1970). During the constitution revision process that led to the 1968 constitution, the task of authoring a provision to replace article I, section 14, of the 1885 constitution was assigned to the human rights committee. In its final report of September 20, 1966, that committee proposed the following language:
No person charged with crime shall be compelled to pay costs except upon conviction or after being placed on probation when judgment of guilt is withheld by the trial judge after plea or verdict of guilty.
However, this section was altered significantly before being adopted in its present form....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burkett v. State
...means an adjudication of guilt by the trial court, notwithstanding a pending appeal, citing DePaulis v. Judges of District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 373 So.2d 663 (Fla.1979) , 6 and Weathers v. State, 56 So.2d 536 (Fla.1952), 7 and distinguishing Joyner on the ground that the respec......
-
Williams v. Wainwright, 80-5838
...although Florida law allows a defendant to refuse probation if he finds its terms objectionable. See De Paulis v. Judges of the District Courts of Appeal, 373 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla.1979); Brown v. State, 305 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.1974); Fla.Stat.Ann. 924.06(1)(b) (West Supp.1981). Appella......
-
Williams v. Ergle, 96-2739
...construed the criminal costs provision and neither dealt with the meaning of the term "costs." DePaulis v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 373 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla.1979); State v. Newman, 24 Fla. 33, 3 So. 467 (1888). Both concerned a convicted defendant's attempt to......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc. v. Baitinger, 83-1552
...of the habitual criminal statute in Joyner is not necessarily controlling in other areas. See DePaulis v. Judges of District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 373 So.2d 663 (Fla.1979) (where the supreme court found that language in the Florida Constitution concerning a final judgment of con......