Page v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of perjury in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County. The appellant seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the provision of Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A.; THOMA
Citation113 So.2d 557
PartiesEddie PAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date17 July 1959

Page 557

113 So.2d 557
Eddie PAGE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 17, 1959.

Edward W. Starr, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Irving B. Levenson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of perjury in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County. The appellant seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the provision of Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing a direct appeal where the trial court construes a controlling provision of the Federal or State Constitution. Appellant asserts that the information charged him with the commission of perjury in a former trial in which he was the defendant and that therefore the second prosecution for perjury would constitute double jeopardy. Therefore he says that the trial court in denying his motion to quash did thereby pass upon a controlling provision of the Federal and State Constitutions to his grevous injury.

So far as our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal is concerned, appellant has presented merely a colorable assertion presenting no substantial basis upon which an appeal will lie under the above-cited constitutional provision. 1 Jurisdiction to decide this question is clearly vested in the District Court of Appeal. Moreover, this case falls squarely within the principle announced by this Court that the application of the facts in a case to a recognized clearcut provision of the Constitution does not amount to a decision upon which this Court could entertain a direct appeal. 2 For us to entertain jurisdiction under this provision of the Constitution 'the trial judge must undertake to explain, define or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision.' 3

It is, therefore, ordered that the notice of appeal and all other papers filed herein shall, at the expiration of five days from the filing of this order, be transferred to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. 4

It is so ordered.

THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.

---------------

1 Evans v. Carroll, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 375.

2 Armstrong v. City of Tampa, Fla.1958, 106 So.2d 407, 409.

3 See preceding footnote, supra.

4 Rule 2.1, subd. a(5), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 25 Abril 1962
    ...The Chancellor did not merely apply the facts 'to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution,' as in Page v. State, Fla., 113 So.2d 557, because the right to work clause is not 'clear-cut' when considered in connection with the facts presented in the instant case. On the contrary,......
  • Gay v. City of Orlando, No. 1439
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Septiembre 1967
    ...or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision. Page v. State, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 557. This test has not been met here. The court in Page noted that application of facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of a constituti......
2 cases
  • Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 25 Abril 1962
    ...The Chancellor did not merely apply the facts 'to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution,' as in Page v. State, Fla., 113 So.2d 557, because the right to work clause is not 'clear-cut' when considered in connection with the facts presented in the instant case. On the contrary,......
  • Gay v. City of Orlando, No. 1439
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Septiembre 1967
    ...or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision. Page v. State, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 557. This test has not been met here. The court in Page noted that application of facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of a constituti......

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