Floyd v. Bentley, 86-2064

Citation496 So.2d 862,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2111
Decision Date03 October 1986
Docket NumberNo. 86-2064,86-2064
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly 2111 Daniel FLOYD, Petitioner, v. The Honorable E. Randolph BENTLEY, Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Floyd seeks a writ of prohibition barring the respondent from proceeding with indirect criminal contempt 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.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

Neither the United States Constitution nor the Florida Constitution affords the right to a jury trial in criminal contempt proceedings when the potential punishment has been limited to no more than six months. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968); Aaron v. State, 345 So.2d 641 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 868, 98 S.Ct. 208, 54 L.Ed.2d 146 (1977) (Aaron II); Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973) (Aaron I); Martinez v. State, 339 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 68 (Fla.1977). Since the trial court has entered a "notice to restrict sentence" to the effect that the maximum sentence upon a finding of guilt will be 179 days, Floyd does not claim a constitutional right to a jury trial. Rather, he maintains that the legislature, by enacting chapter 86-115, Laws of Florida, has provided a statutory right to a jury in criminal contempt proceedings.

The statute in question, which creates section 918.0155 Florida Statutes (1986) (tentatively renumbered as 918.0157), provides as follows:

Right to trial by jury.--In all prosecutions for a violation of a state law or a municipal or county ordinance punishable by imprisonment, the defendant shall have, upon demand, the right to a trial by an impartial jury in the county where the offense was committed, except as to all such prosecutions for violations punishable for a term of imprisonment of 6 months or less, if at the time the case is set for trial the court announces that in the event of conviction of the crime as charged or of any lesser included offense, a sentence of imprisonment will not be imposed, and the defendant will not be adjudicated guilty, unless a right to trial by jury for such offense is guaranteed under the state or federal constitution.

However, for this court to find that the legislature, in enacting the above statute, intended to confer the right to jury trials in contempt proceedings, we would also be required to find a legislative intent to repeal section 38.22, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides that the court "shall hear and determine all questions of law and fact" when exercising its inherent contempt power. This we cannot do.

There exists a presumption that laws are passed with knowledge of all prior laws already on the books, as well as a presumption that the legislature neither intended to keep contradictory enactments in force nor to repeal a prior law without an express intention to do so. Woodgate Development Corp. v. Hamilton Investment Trust, 351 So.2d 14 (Fla.1977). Accordingly, courts have a duty to adopt a scheme of statutory construction which harmonizes and reconciles two statutes and to find a reasonable field of operation that will preserve the force and effect of each. Woodgate; American Bakeries Co. v. Haines City, 131 Fla. 790, 180 So. 524 (1938). It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that a special statute covering a particular subject matter is controlling over a general statutory provision covering the same and other subjects in more general terms; in such a situation the more narrowly-drawn statute operates as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute. Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665 (Fla.1959); Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Road and Bridge District, 71 Fla. 158, 71 So. 42 (1916); State ex rel. Loftin v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc., Case Nos. 2D17-829
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 16, 2019
    ...statute." Legal Envtl. Assistance Found. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 702 So. 2d 1352, 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citing Floyd v. Bentley, 496 So. 2d 862, 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ); see also McKendry v. State, 641 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1994) ("[A] specific statute covering a particular subject are......
  • Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Southwest Florida Water Management Dist., 87-556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 22, 1988
    ...County School Board v. State Dept. of Admin., 500 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); approved, 514 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1987); Floyd v. Bentley, 496 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. den., 504 So.2d 767 However, we can find no basis to support the exemption for the activities specified by section 4......
  • Parker v. Baker, 85-2900
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 17, 1986
    ...rel. Loftin v. McMillan, 55 Fla. 246, 45 So. 882 (1908). These same principles were recently applied by this court in Floyd v. Bentley, 496 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The local law was enacted after enactment of the statute. However, in these circumstances the order of enactment of the t......
  • Scates v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 23, 1992
    ...drawn statute operates as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute. Floyd v. Bentley, 496 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla. 2d DCA1986), review denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla.1987). Thus, the more narrowly drawn section 893.13(1)(e) controls over the more gener......
  • 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