Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1921 |
| Citation | 81 Fla. 783,89 So. 114 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Alachua County; B. A. Thrasher, Judge.
Application by Luke Johnson for a writ of habeas corpus against the state. Judgment for defendant, and petitioner brings error.
Reversed with directions to remand.
Syllabus by the Court
Eighteenth Amendment supersedes all conflicting constitutional provisions. The Eighteenth Amendment, being the paramount law of the United States and of the states on the subjects covered by it, supersedes or restrains the operation of all provisions of the federal Constitution and of the amendments thereto, in so far as such provisions are in conflict with the commands of the latest amendment. All state laws, whether organic or statutory, that conflict with the Eighteenth Amendment, are thereby rendered unenforceable.
Neither Congress nor state can confer a right that violates the Eighteenth Amendment. Neither the Congress nor a state can confer a right that violates the commands of the Eighteenth Amendment. But the Congress and the several states have express 'concurrent power to enforce' the amendment 'by appropriate legislation.'
State enforcement laws may be valid, although differing from federal enforcement laws. In so far as state laws are appropriate to enforce the prohibitions contained in the Eighteenth Amendment, they may be valid, though they differ from federal enforcement laws as to procedure or penalties for in enforcing the organic prohibitions the state and federal powers are concurrent.
Congress has implied power to define subject of federal organic prohibition. In the absence of an organic definition Congress has implied power to define the subject of a federal organic prohibition or regulation; and the definition of 'intoxicating liquors' enacted by Congress is dominant to make the prohibition of the Eighteenth Amendment uniformly effective wherever they are applicable.
Congress and states may enact statutory regulations under Constitution. In enforcing the organic prohibitions, the Congress and the states may enact statutory regulations and prohibitions of the possession of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes as a means to effectuate the main purpose. But such statutory prohibitions must conform to all applicable provisions of organic law.
Courts take judicial notice that whisky is an intoxicating liquor regulated by statute. The courts take judicial notice that whisky is an intoxicating liquor, the possession of which is regulated by statute within organic limitations.
Petitioner may be remanded for proper sentence where illegal sentence pronounced on plea of guilty. Where an illegal sentence is rendered upon a plea of guilty, and the defendant seeks relief in habeas corpus proceedings, the petitioner may be remanded for a proper sentence, if the plea of guilty is predic ted upon a sufficient charge under a valid statute.
Thomas W. Fielding and Evans Haile, both of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers H. Buford, Atty. Gen., and Worth W. Trammell, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
In habeas corpus proceedings Luke Johnson was remanded to custody under a sentence of conviction upon a charge that on July 17, 1920, in Alachua county, Fla., he had 'in his possession, custody, and control at his residence two gallons of moonshine whisky, which said moonshine whisky was alcoholic and intoxicating liquor or beverage,' and that on said date and in said county he had 'in his possession, custody, and control at his pool room or place of business two gallons of intoxicating liquors, to wit, two gallons of moonshine whisky, the same being intoxicating liquor,' contrary to the statute, etc., the judgment being that, 'the defendant having been arraigned and pleaded guilty to having in his possession two gallons moonshine whisky at his place of business and two gallons moonshine whisky at his residence, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that the defendant, Luke Johnson, be confined in the county jail for the term of six months at hard labor.' A writ of error was allowed and taken under the statute to the judgment remanding the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. Section 2257, Gen. Stats. 1906; Marasso v. Van Pelt, 77 Fla. 432, 81 So. 529.
The state Constitution and statutes on the particular subject, both of which became effective January 1, 1919, are as follows:
Amended article 19 of the state Constitution, which was adopted at the general election in November, 1918, is as follows:
Chapter 7736, Laws of Florida, is entitled 'An act to make effective the nineteenth article of the Constitution of this state, as amended at the general election held November fifth, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and to prohibit the manufacture, sale, barter or exchange, the transportation into this state, or from one point to another point within this state, and the possession of alcoholic or other intoxicating liquors or beverages,' etc., including many other more or less germane subdivisions of the main subject.
This statute was approved December 7, 1918, to become effective January 1, 1919, and, as amended by chapter 7890, Acts of 1919, penalizing severally the manufacture, sale, barter, exchange, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and in terms makes it----
'unlawful for any person * * * to have in his * * * possession, custody or control, in this state, any alcoholic or intoxicating liquors or beverages, except' that 'nothing contained in this act shall be construed to make it unlawful for any person over the age of twentyone years to possess, have in his custody, or control, in such person's bona fide residence for the personal use of himself or herself and family, and not to be disposed of to any other person in any way, not exceeding four quarts of distilled alcoholic or intoxicating liquors or beverages and twenty quarts of malt or fermented alcoholic or intoxicating liquors or beverages, either or both; provided, however, that such person obtained and had in his possession said liquors before this act became a law, but this shall not be construed to permit any such person to possess, have in custody or control more than the maximum quantity of the particular class of liquors herein mentioned.' See chapter 7736 and chapter 7890.
It is also provided:
'That all drinks, beverages, or alcoholic liquors, for beverage purposes, containing onehalf of one per centum of alcohol, or more, by volume, at sixty degrees Fahrenheit, and all intoxicating liquors and beverages, whether spirituous, vinous or malt, shal be deemed and held to be within the prohibitions of this act.'
Punishments are prescribed for violations of the different provisions of the statute. See sections 3, 5, 7, and 18, c. 7736, Acts of 1918, and chapter 7890, Acts of 1919.
The Eighteenth Amendment of the federa Constitution and the Volstead Act of Con gress, both of which took effect January 1, 1920, contain the following:
The Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305) provides that----
'The phrase 'intoxicating liquor' shall be construed to include alcohol, brandy, whisky, rum, gin, beer, ale, porter, and wine, and in addition thereto any spirituous, vinous, malt, or fermented liquor, liquids, and compounds, whether medicated, proprietary, * * * or not, and by whatever name called, containing one-half of one per centum or more of alcohol by volume which are fit for use for beverage purposes.'
It also provides that----
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
... ... manufacture, transportation, importation and exportation ... thereof for beverage purposes, are protected by the 14th ... amendment from abridgment by state laws. ( Hall v ... Moran, 81 Fla. 706, 89 So. 104; Burrows v ... Moran, 81 Fla. 662, 89 So. 111; Johnson v ... State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 So. 114; Haile v. Gardner, 82 ... Fla. 355, 91 So. 376.) ... Roy L ... Black, Attorney General, and James L. Boone, Assistant, for ... Respondent ... The ... state may prohibit the mere possession of intoxicating ... liquors. ( In re Crane, ... ...
-
State v. Lee Lim
... ... Ct ... 554 (2 or 3 years); Com. v. Ashe , 293 Pa ... 18, 141 A. 723 (1 year 3 months); In re Harris , 68 ... Vt. 243, 35 A. 55 (nearly 3 months); Ex parte Lewis , ... 51 Mont. 539, 154 P. 713; Ex parte Howard , 72 Kan ... 273, 83 P. 1032; Johnson v. State , 81 Fla ... 783, 89 So. 114; Hampton v. Orme , 92 Fla ... 412, 109 So. 455; Ex parte Simmons , 73 Fla. 998, 75 ... So. 542 (10 years 7 months); In re Williamson , 116 ... Wash. 560, 200 P. 329; Mahler v. Eby , 264 ... U.S. 32, 44 S.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. 549 ... The ... ...
-
State v. Irving Lucia
... ... possession of non-beverage liquor when the same is allowed ... under the Volstead Act, but with that other provision which ... absolutely prohibits the possession of liquor for beverage ... purposes ... The ... respondent also relies upon Johnson v ... State , 81 Fla. 783, 89 So. 114, 107-109, as an ... authority in his favor. In that case it was held that a state ... statute which limited the amount of intoxicating liquor which ... could be lawfully possessed by one in his private dwelling ... was invalid so far as liquors legally ... ...
-
State v. Lucia
...other provision which absolutely prohibits the possession of liquor for beverage purposes. The respondent also relies upon Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 So. 114, as an authority in his favor. In that case it was held that a state statute which limited the amount of intoxicating liquor w......