Jamason v. State
| Decision Date | 30 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63571,63571 |
| Citation | 455 So.2d 380 |
| Parties | John H. JAMASON, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
David Roth of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Hazouri and Roth, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported as Jamason v. State, 447 So.2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), in which the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Whether the willful refusal to obey a telephonic order (in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus) issued by a court of general jurisdiction and based upon an oral application therefor by an attorney for the individual said to be illegally restrained, may constitute criminal contempt.
Id. at 896. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we approve the district court decision and answer the certified question in the affirmative.
The relevant facts of this cause are as follows. At approximately 9:30 a.m. on January 18, 1982, Circuit Court Judge Rosemary Barkett received a telephone call from an attorney who was allegedly retained to represent a man in the custody of the West Palm Beach Police Department. The attorney stated that he had been denied access to his client. Judge Barkett then telephoned the petitioners, officers with the West Palm Beach Police Department, and stated that she was "issuing an oral writ of habeas corpus to bring [the prisoner] before me immediately." 447 So.2d at 893. There was no dispute concerning the identity of Judge Barkett but the officers refused to comply with her oral order. By the time a formal writ of habeas corpus had been issued, the prisoner had been transferred to the Palm Beach County Jail. Petitioners were subsequently adjudged guilty of criminal contempt for the willful refusal to obey the court's telephonic order and were fined $500 each.
On appeal, the district court of appeal affirmed the trial court. The court noted that 447 So.2d at 893. Finding that this case involved an oral application for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court held that the circuit judge had subject matter jurisdiction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santana v. Henry
...mandate; it is a writ of ancient right." Jamason v. State, 447 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), decision approved, 455 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1984). "[H]istorically, habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is as old as the common law itself and is an integral part of our own democratic pro......
-
Henry v. Santana
...It is more than a privilege with which free men are endowed by constitutional mandate; it is a writ of ancient right.”), approved, 455 So.2d 380 (Fla.1984). FN3. See also Crane v. Hayes, 253 So.2d 435, 439 (Fla.1971) (“As a general rule, a habeas corpus proceeding is an independent action, ......
-
Kalmanson v. Lockett
...orders to law enforcement officers, "while not preferred, are necessary at times," and are generally enforceable. See Jamason v. State, 455 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1100, 105 S.Ct. 768, 83 L.Ed.2d 766 (1985). Thus, Judge Lockett's alleged conduct, while regrettable......
-
Haliburton v. State
...admitted. McDONALD, C.J., concurs. * We discussed the duty of law enforcement officers to obey telephonic court orders in Jamason v. State, 455 So.2d 380 (Fla.1984). ...