Dykman v. State, No. 44142

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtDEKLE; CARLTON; ERVIN
Citation294 So.2d 633
Docket NumberNo. 44142
Decision Date12 December 1973
PartiesJohn DYKMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 633

294 So.2d 633
John DYKMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 44142.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Dec. 12, 1973.
Rehearing Denied June 10, 1974.

Page 634

Joel Hirschhorn, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Peter F. LaPorte, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DEKLE, Justice.

This cause comes to us pursuant to an order of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, transferring the case to this Court. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we accept the transfer only as to the trial court's upholding of the validity of Chapters 57--550 and 70--1000 relating to grand jury selection and remand the cause to the district court as to the remaining issues.

The basis of the transfer, as revealed by the motion therefor, was asserted to be the trial court's ruling on the constitutionality of various state statutes. Of the seven points raised on appeal, three (competency to stand trial, admissibility of certain hearsay evidence, and giving of certain jury instructions) are clearly outside the scope of our jurisdiction as to direct appeals under Article V, § 3(b)(1), of the State Constitution. Thus, jurisdiction in this Court, if present, must rest upon one of the remaining four issues raised on appeal.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court on direct appeal from an order of a trial court is governed by the provisions of Article V, § 3(b)(1) of our constitution. This section provides that the Supreme Court shall hear appeals from final judgments and orders of trial courts 'initially and directly passing on the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a provision of the state or federal constitution.' Although our direct appeals jurisdiction includes cases in which the trial court Inherently passes upon the constitutionality of a Statute, we may not accept a direct appeal based upon an Inherent construction of a Constitutional provision; it is insufficient to invoke our direct appeals jurisdiction that there was an Inherent construction

Page 635

of a Constitutional provision in the judgment appealed from, but rather there must be an express ruling by the trial court which explains, defines, or overtly states a view which eliminates some existing doubt as to a constitutional provision in order to support a direct appeal. 2 Our direct appeals jurisdiction is not properly invoked merely because the trial court may Apply a constitutional provision to the facts before it, but rather is properly invoked as to construction of a constitutional provision only where the trial court has Expressly construed the constitutional provision involved. 3 With these principles in mind, we shall examine the several issues raised on appeal to determine if our direct appeals jurisdiction has been properly invoked.
VALIDITY OF SEARCH

By motions to suppress, appellant attacked the admissibility of various items of evidence obtained by the police in a search of his home. Appellant asserts that any 'consent' that he gave to the search was vitiated by the fraud and duress he asserts were practiced upon him by the police officers conducting the search, thus invalidating the consent and making the search unreasonable in that the officers did not have a warrant and that the search was not, according to appellant, pursuant to a lawful arrest. A brief description of the background of the search may be helpful.

Appellant, a 78-year-old man, reported to the police that his wife was missing. Police officials later found the dismembered portions of a woman's body, wrapped in plastic bags, along the banks of a canal in the city; this body was identified as the body of appellant's wife (although appellant has made some effort to attack this identification). After the identification had been made, two police officers went to appellant's house and informed him that they would like to search the house in connection with the investigation of the disappearance of his wife. Appellant agreed to this proposition, and signed a consent form. Appellant now asserts that this apparent consent was invalid, in that (1) the police officers deceived him by not notifying him that a body identified as that of his wife had been discovered, (2) the situation of two policemen confronting a man of his age was fraught with coercion, (3) the police officers failed to warn appellant of his right not to consent to the search or any of his other 'Miranda' rights, and (4) that he was not competent to give a valid consent. The trial court denied the motions to suppress.

Inasmuch as the question presently before us is whether or not our direct appeals jurisdiction has properly been invoked, we do not reach the merits of the issue as to whether the search in question was valid; our sole concern at present is whether this issue is properly before us. We hold that it is not.

In determining that the search in question was valid, the trial court did not have presented to it any issue of statutory validity, and did not rule on the validity of any statute, federal or state. Nor did the trial court expressly construe, define or overtly explain the meaning of any constitutional provision. In fact, it would be difficult to say that the trial court had even inherently construed a constitutional provision, and we have previously indicated that the Inherent construction of a constitutional provision would not support a direct appeal to this Court. 4 In ruling upon the motions to suppress, the trial court merely applied undisputed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Valle v. State, No. 61176
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 11, 1985
    ...authorizing grand jury selection have been consistently upheld by this Court as both constitutional and effective. See Dykman v. State, 294 So.2d 633 (Fla.1973); Rojas v. State, 288 So.2d 234 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 851, 95 S.Ct. 93, 42 L.Ed.2d 82 (1974); Seay v. State, 286 So.2d......
  • Huffman v. Wainwright, No. 80-5237
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1981
    ...shall be in writing and shall specify the facts constituting the ground of the challenge." The Florida Supreme Court in Dykman v. State, 294 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1973), and Rojas v. State, 288 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1973), stated that before a court is required to permit an investigation of its jury po......
  • Pitts v. State, Nos. T--146 and T--147
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 3, 1975
    ...the trial judge was eminently correct in denying appellants' Post-trial motion for discovery. (See Dykman v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 294 So.2d 633) We next consider appellants' claim that their right to a fair trial was denied because they were tried in Jackson County, Florida, where prejud......
  • Croteau v. State, No. 46921
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1976
    ...So.2d 234 (Fla.1973); Ogle v. Pepin, 273 So.2d 391 (Fla.1973); Armstrong v. City of Tampa, 106 So.2d 407 (Fla.1958). In Dykman v. State, 294 So.2d 633 (Fla.1973) (reh. den. 1974) Cert. den. 419 U.S. 1105, 95 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed.2d 800 (1975) Transferred 300 So.2d 695, the Court Although our ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Valle v. State, No. 61176
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 11, 1985
    ...authorizing grand jury selection have been consistently upheld by this Court as both constitutional and effective. See Dykman v. State, 294 So.2d 633 (Fla.1973); Rojas v. State, 288 So.2d 234 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 851, 95 S.Ct. 93, 42 L.Ed.2d 82 (1974); Seay v. State, 286 So.2d......
  • Huffman v. Wainwright, No. 80-5237
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1981
    ...shall be in writing and shall specify the facts constituting the ground of the challenge." The Florida Supreme Court in Dykman v. State, 294 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1973), and Rojas v. State, 288 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1973), stated that before a court is required to permit an investigation of its jury po......
  • Pitts v. State, Nos. T--146 and T--147
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 3, 1975
    ...the trial judge was eminently correct in denying appellants' Post-trial motion for discovery. (See Dykman v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 294 So.2d 633) We next consider appellants' claim that their right to a fair trial was denied because they were tried in Jackson County, Florida, where prejud......
  • Croteau v. State, No. 46921
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1976
    ...So.2d 234 (Fla.1973); Ogle v. Pepin, 273 So.2d 391 (Fla.1973); Armstrong v. City of Tampa, 106 So.2d 407 (Fla.1958). In Dykman v. State, 294 So.2d 633 (Fla.1973) (reh. den. 1974) Cert. den. 419 U.S. 1105, 95 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed.2d 800 (1975) Transferred 300 So.2d 695, the Court Although our ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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