Robinson v. State, 40039
| Decision Date | 14 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 40039,40039 |
| Citation | 132 So.2d 3 |
| Parties | James Russell ROBINSON et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Tobias Simon, Miami, and Alfred I. Hopkins, Miami Beach, for petitioners.
Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State Atty., Miami, for respondent.
By petition for certiorari we are requested to review a decision of a circuit court which sat as an appellate court to review an appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor in a criminal court of record.
The problem which challenges our attention involves a number of jurisdictional complications which must be resolved.
Robinson and others were found guilty of a misdemeanor in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. Each moved for a directed verdict without specifying the grounds thereof. The motion was denied and the petitioners were placed on probation under Chapter 948, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
In denying the motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge stated:
They thereupon appealed to the Circuit Court of Dade County seeking review of the misdemeanor conviction. Article V, Section 6, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The record reveals that the petitioners were charged and found guilty of a violation of Section 509.141(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to leave a restaurant after being requested so to do. By their appeal to the Circuit Court they contended that the application of the statute approved by the trial court amounted to State action violative of Federal rights to due process and equal protection of the law. Our examination of the record does not reflect that these contentions were raised in the trial court. The matter was considered by the circuit judge acting in his appellate capacity. He entered a judgment stating that he was 'of the opinion that Section 509.141 of the Florida Statutes is a valid exercise of the sovereignty of the State of Florida and that its application to the appellants in this case does not deprive them of any of their rights under the Constitutions of the United States or of the State of Florida.' The circuit judge thereupon affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
By petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the District Court of Appeal, Third District, Robinson et al. sought review of the appellate decision of the circuit judge. The respondent, State of Florida, filed a motion to dismiss the petition in the District Court of Appeal. That court treated the motion to dismiss as a motion to transfer the cause to the Supreme Court, and thereupon entered an order transferring the cause to this Court. All of the papers in the cause have been lodged here. We are now confronted by another motion of respondent, State of Florida, requesting us to dismiss the petition for certiorari. The matter has come on for hearing upon this motion which ordinarily would be disposed of without opinion. The complexities of the jurisdictional problems presented, however, appear to justify our discussion thereof for the future guidance of the Bar and other courts.
If a judgment or decree of a trial court passes directly upon the validity of a statute or construes a controlling provision of the State or Federal Constitutions review by appeal should be sought directly in this Court. Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution; State v. Bruno, Fla., 104 So.2d 588, Fla., 107 So.2d 9; Boyd v. County of Dade, Fla., 123 So.2d 323. The sum of these prior decisions simply is that when a trial court, by its final judgment or decree, passes directly on the validity of a statute or construes a controlling provision of the Constitution, then in the interest of a prompt and final disposition of these important questions, the appeal comes directly to this Court without the necessity of any intermediary consideration by any other appellate court. This is so even in the case of a misdemeanor conviction which otherwise would be considered by circuit courts. Article V, Section 6, Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pettis
...may result in irremediable harm. See, e.g., McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla.1985).3 See supra n. 1 at 257.4 Robinson v. State, 132 So.2d 3 (Fla.1961). The extent of district court certiorari jurisdiction is governed generally by precedences previously applicable to this Court. Dresn......
-
R.L.B. v. State
...Supreme Court does not have common-law certiorari jurisdiction to review decisions of the district courts of appeal. See Robinson v. State, 132 So.2d 3 (Fla.1961), rev'd on other grounds, 378 U.S. 153, 84 S.Ct. 1693, 12 L.Ed.2d 771 ...
-
State v. G.P.
...common-law certiorari power exercised by this Court prior to the effective date of amended Article V, on July 1, 1957. Robinson v. State, 132 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1961), rev'd on other grounds, 378 U.S. 153, 84 S.Ct. 1693, 12 L.Ed.2d 771 (1964). Utilizing this limited jurisdiction, the district ......
-
Haines City Community Development v. Heggs
...Court any general power to issue common law writs of certiorari. See Vetrick v. Hollander, 464 So.2d 552, 553 (Fla.1985); Robinson v. State, 132 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1961).3 It has been noted that there are at least four distinguishing features between review by common-law certiorari and review ......
-
Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
...42 STETSON L. REV. 403, 407 (2013). (13) Id. at 406-08 (citing Kilgore v. Bird, 6 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1942)). (14) Robinson v. State, 132 So. 2d 3, 5 (Fla. 1961); Haddad, The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida at 209-11; Russo et al., Certiorari Redefined at 408; Robert J. Telfer III, A ......