Ex Parte Martini
| Citation | 2 So. 689,23 Fla. 343 |
| Parties | Ex parte MARTINI. |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1887 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Writ of error to the circuit court, Escambia county.
On petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Syllabus by the Court
A municipal ordinance which provides that a person convicted of a certain offense shall be fined not exceeding $500, and may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 60 days, or both does not authorize a sentence to 'pay a fine of one hundred dollars, or perform sixty days' work on the public streets' of the city.
The latter clause of the sentence is not authorized by the imprisonment clause of such ordinance, nor by an ordinance authorizing the mayor or president of the municipality to commit to the city prison or work-house or place of correction, for a period to be determined by such mayor or president, but not to exceed 60 days, any convict failing to pay a fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed under any city ordinance. Ex parte Hunter, 16 Fla. 575, distinguished.
The above sentence is void for uncertainty, being in the alternative, and otherwise illegal.
COUNSEL Tucker & Thompson, for petitioner.
W. A Blount, for respondent.
The petitioner was sentenced by the municipal court of the provisional municipality of Pensacola in May, 1886, to pay a fine of $100 or perform 60 days' work on the public streets, for permitting minors to game in a house kept by him. He applied to the judge of the First circuit and obtained a writ of habeas corpus; alleging, as a ground for his discharge, that the judgment or sentence was null and void for being in the alternative, and for want of jurisdiction in the court to render such a sentence. The circuit judge, after due hearing, remanded the prisoner, who brings the case here by writ of error.
By section 1, c. 3027, Acts 1877, the city or town council was given power to pass all such ordinances and laws as may be expedient and necessary for the preservation of the public peace and morals, and for the good order and government of the city, and to impose such pains, penalties, and forfeitures as may be needed to carry the same into effect such ordinances not to be inconsistent with the constitution and laws of this state, or United States; and for no one offense made punishable by the ordinances and laws of a city shall 'a fine of more than five hundred dollars be assessed, nor imprisonment for a period of time greater than sixty days.' The same power is given a provisional municipality by the act of 1885.
The ordinance under which the petitioner was arraigned and convicted, provides that the party convicted shall 'forfeit and pay the sum which the mayor may impose as a fine, not exceeding five hundred dollars, and may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding sixty days, or both, for each and every offense.'
There is also an ordinance which provides that in all cases where the mayor shall, in accordance with any law or ordinance impose any fine, penalty, or forfeiture upon any person, and if such person shall not comply with and perform the judgment imposing such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, he shall be committed to the city prison or work- house or place of correction until discharged by law,--not to exceed, however, 60 days for any one offense, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emmertson v. State Tax Commission
... ... Zundel, 67 Utah 456, 248 P. 135; Frankey v ... Patten, 75 Utah 231, 284 P. 318; In re ... Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872; Ex Parte ... Page, 49 Mo. 291; Ex parte Martini, 23 Fla ... 343, 345, 2 So. 689, 690; 8 R. C. L., § 237, p. 237; ... [72 P.2d 469] ... Habeas Corpus, ... ...
-
State v. Sturgis
...leaves it to the prosecutor (the convict) either to pay a fine or submit to a term of imprisonment as he may select." And in Ex parte Martini, 23 Fla. 343, 345, 2 South. 689, 690, it was said: "If the sentence is to be considered as inflicting in the alternative a fine of $100, or the perfo......
-
Wagner v. United States
...the alternative punishment of fine or imprisonment is void for uncertainty." 16 C. J. 1304. To the same effect, see Ex parte Martini, 23 Fla. 343, 2 So. 689; State v. Sturgis, 110 Me. 96, 85 A. 474, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 443; Brownbridge v. People, 38 Mich. 751; Donnoly v. People, 38 Mich. 75......
-
Tanner v. Wiggins
... ... unauthorized by the statute. The right of [54 Fla. 212] a ... trial court to suspend the imposition of a sentence is ... recognized in Ex parte Williams, 26 Fla. 310, 8 So. 425; but ... the power of such a court to suspend the execution of a ... sentence already lawfully imposed, except for ... ignore its plain language and hold the whole sentence void, ... if we adhere to the doctrine announced in Ex parte Martini, ... 23 Fla. 343, 2 So. 689, in which it was held that a sentence ... in the alternative was void for uncertainty. In the case of ... Ex parte ... ...