Hancock v. Sapp, s. 38177
| Decision Date | 23 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | 38257,Nos. 38177,38176,s. 38177 |
| Citation | 225 So.2d 411 |
| Parties | O. W. HANCOCK, Appellant, v. Christopher Francis SAPP et al., Appellees. Stan WRISLEY et al., Appellants, v. Richard M. STANLEY et al., Appellees. O. W. HANCOCK, Appellant, v. Lester WHITAKER, Sr., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edward S. Jaffry, Lakeland, for appellants.
Thomas K. Boardman, Immopalee, for Christopher, Francis Sapp.
James R. Adams, Naples, for Richard M. Stanley et al. and Lester Whitaker, Sr., et al.
We here review on direct appeal three judgments of the Circuit Court in and for Collier County, Florida, flowing from a controversy occasioned by the enactment of chapter 68--836, Laws of Florida 1967, which purported to create a . All parties have agreed on the statement of facts presented by the appellant in this language:
'The instant controversy arose because of the enactment of Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, by the 1967 Session of the Florida Legislature, creating in Collier County, Florida, a court to be called the Criminal Court of the Justice of the Peace of the Fourth District of Collier County, Florida.
'This Act provided that the said Court would succeed to the 'powers and duties of any criminal jurisdiction of any justice of the peace court', then functioning in such Justice of the Peace District in Collier County, Florida, and would in addition have jurisdiction of all misdemeanors committed within that District. The Act also provided such jurisdiction would be concurrent with the criminal jurisdiction of any other court or courts established in the County, having like jurisdiction.
'The Act further provided that the Judge of the Justice of the Peace Court of the Fourth District of Collier County, Florida, would be the Judge of the Court therein established and would continue in office until his present term expired or until his successor was duly elected and qualified. The Act provided further that, any successor judge would be a resident of the Fourth Justice of the Peace District in Collier County and would be elected for a term of four years by the electors of District Four.
'In the summer of 1967, and after the foregoing Statute had become law, the Appellant Hancock, the then duly elected and qualified Justice of the Peace of the Fourth District of Collier County, commenced operating the criminal jurisdiction of his Court as the Criminal Court of the Justice of the Deace of the Fourth District of Collier County, Florida and continued to do so until the expiration of his term in January 1969.
'In the spring of 1968, the Appellant qualified as the Democratic candidate for the office of Justice of the Peace of the Fourth District of Collier County, as did one Nash Lloyd and the Appellee herein, Mr. Christopher Francis Sapp (under the name Chris Sapp).
'The Republican party offered no candidates for that office nor was there reflected on the official ballot, any office known as 'Judge of the Criminal Court of the Justice of the Peace of the Fourth District of Collier County, Florida'.
'In the first primary held on May 7, 1968, the Appellant Hancock prevailed over his two opponents and was declared and certified as the winner of the Democratic party primary.
'Within 30 days prior to the general election held on November 5, 1968, the Appellee, Christopher Francis Sapp, qualified as a write-in candidate pursuant to Section 99.023, Florida Statutes, for the new office as a candidate for the office of Judge of the Criminal Court of the Justice of the Peace of the Fourth District of Collier County, maintaining that Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, provided for two offices, to wit:
'(a) The office of the Justice of the Fourth District and
'(b) The office of the judge of the Criminal Court of the Justice of the Peace of the Fourth District, both of Collier County, Florida.
'The election was had, the Appellant Hancock was elected as the Justice of the but the Canvassing Board for Collier County refused to count the votes cast for Appellant Hancock as write-in votes, by what was believed to be a majority of the persons voting in that race, because Appellant Hancock had not qualified pursuant to the provisions of Section 99.023, Florida Statutes (F.S.A.). * * *'.
Out of the situation three court actions developed:
Hancock, in a complaint for declaratory decree, among other things, sought a construction and interpretation of Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, raising the constitutionality vel non of the Act. The trial court eliminated from Chapter 67--836 this language
', * * * which court shall succeed to the powers and duties of any criminal jurisdiction of any justice of the peace court now functioning in such justice of the peace district.'
as being unconstitutional and in violation of Sections 20 and 21 of Article III, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.; having eliminated this objectionable language from the Act and, because of the broad severability clause, sustained the constitutionality of the remainder and held that Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, as revised, created a new statutory court under Section 1 of Article V, Constitution of Florida (1885), thereby leaving the Fourth Justice District of Collier County with both a 'Justice of the Peace Court' and the 'Criminal Court of the Justice of the Peace, Fourth District, Collier County, Florida' created by Chapter 67--836.
Wrisley and Hancock, among other things, sought a declaration that Section 99.023, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requiring the registration of a write-in candidate at least thirty days prior to the general election, was unconstitutional. Their complaint was dismissed with the trial court opining that it was unnecessary to reach the constitutional questions because Hancock, in qualifying for office of Justice of the Peace, had committed himself to that office and therefore was without standing to demand that his write-in votes be counted for another office without first abandoning the office to which he had been nominated and elected, and in so doing cited decision of this court in State ex rel. Fair v. Adams (Fla.1962) 139 So.2d 879, 94 A.L.R.2d 550.
3. O. W. Hancock v. Lester Whitaker, Sr., et al, as and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Case No. 38,257.
Here, the Board of County Commissioners sought a judicial declaration to the effect that Chapters 59--769 and 63--720, Laws of Florida, were unconstitutional. The trial court determined that said Chapters were unconstitutional, null and void, and in violation of Sections 20 and 21 of Article III, Constitution of Florida.
We shall dispose of the questions in the order in which they are hereinabove set forth.
In Hancock v. Sapp, Case #38,177, the trial court properly held that the legal effect of Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, was to create an additional statutory court with the same territorial jurisdiction as that of the Fourth Justice of the Peace District in Collier County, Florida.
Section 1, Article V, Constitution of Florida, provides
'The judicial power of the State of Florida is vested in a supreme court, district courts of appeal, circuit courts, Court of Record of Escambia County, criminal courts of record, county courts, county judge's courts, juvenile courts, courts of justices of the peace, and such other courts, including municipal courts, or commissions, as the legislature may from time to time ordain and establish.'
The court of the Justice of the Peace sub judice derives its organic jurisdiction under Section 11(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida, which states:
Its jurisdiction is further defined in Section 37.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
A perusal of these sources of jurisdiction, when compared with the jurisdiction of the court created by Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, quickly demonstrate that the newly created court could not have been intended as a replacement of the court of the Justice of the Peace, and if so its constitutionality would have been in grave doubt. This court has long been committed to the proposition that, where the law is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which is to render it unconstitutional, the court will assume that the Legislature intended to pass a constitutional act, and will adopt the interpretation which leads to that result. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in holding that Chapter 67--836, Laws of Florida, created, in addition to the Court of the Justice of the Peace, Fourth District, a statutory court under its authority to do so in Section 1, Article V, Constitution of Florida. The trial court was also correct in deleting the objectionable language from said Chapter 67--836, supra, and in applying the severability clause to hold valid the remainder of the Act.* Accordingly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tornillo v. Miami Herald Pub. Co.
...113 Fla. 591, 152 So. 663 (1933); Hanson v. State, 56 So.2d 129 (Fla.1952); Overstreet v. Blum, 227 So.2d 197 (Fla.1969); Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So.2d 411 (Fla.1969); Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla.1968).1 John 8:32.1 Buck v. Gibbs, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 510, mod. Watson v. Back, 313 U.S. 387, ......
-
State v. Mayhew, 43575
...113 Fla. 591, 152 So. 663 (1933); Hanson v. State, 56 So.2d 129 (Fla.1952); Overstreet v. Blum, 227 So.2d 197 (Fla.1969); Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So.2d 411 (Fla.1969); Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla.1968); Tornillo v. The Miami Herald Publishing Co., ...
-
State v. Aiuppa
...113 Fla. 591, 152 So. 663 (1933); Hanson v. State, 56 So.2d 129 (Fla.1952); Overstreet v. Blum, 227 So.2d 197 (Fla.1969); Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So.2d 411 (Fla.1969); Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla.1968); Tornillo v. Miami Herald Pub. Co., 287 So.2d 78 (Fla.1973).5 Ervin v. Peninsular Tel.......
-
Corn v. State, 46922
...113 Fla. 591, 152 So. 663 (1933); Hanson v. State, 56 So.2d 129 (Fla.1952); Overstreet v. Blum, 227 So.2d 197 (Fla.1969); Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So.2d 411 (Fla.1969); Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla.1968).3 Burns v. State, 97 Fla. 232, 120 So. 360 (1929); Kuhn v. State, 98 Fla. 206, 123 So.......