State Ex Rel. Richardson v. Ferrell

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Citation130 Fla. 26,177 So. 181
PartiesSTATE ex rel. RICHARDSON v. FERRELL, Sheriff.
Decision Date06 November 1937

Original proceeding in habeas corpus by the State of Florida, on the relation of Arthur Richardson, against Emmett Ferrell, as Sheriff of Wakulla County, Florida.

Relator remanded to the custody of respondent.

COUNSEL Clyde W. Atkinson and J. Lewis Hall, both of Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.

OPINION

CHAPMAN Justice.

Petitioner Arthur Richardson, on the 7th day of October, 1937, filed in this court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, among other things, that on the 4th day of October, 1937, T. B. Oppert made affidavit before R. E. Chapman, justice of the peace of the Second district of Wakulla county, Fla., charging your petitioner with the crime commonly known as gambling. That a warrant issued thereon, and petitioner was arrested on the 5th day of October, 1937. Upon arraignment before R. E. Chapman, as justice of the peace of the Second district of Wakulla county, Fla., then and thereto, to said charge he made and entered his plea of guilty.

The justice of the peace on October 5, 1937, issued a commitment directed to the sheriff of Wakulla county commanding him to commit your petitioner to the common jail of Wakulla county, Fla., then and there to be safely kept and to await and to attend the then next term of the county judge's court in and for Wakulla county, Fla., to then and there have the aforesaid cause, formerly pending, in the justice of the peace court of the second district in and for Wakulla county, Fla., disposed of according to law.

On October 7, 1937, a writ of habeas corpus issued out of this court directed to Emmett Ferrell, as sheriff of Wakulla county, Fla., respondent, commanding him to produce immediately the body of the petitioner, Arthur Richardson, and that he then and there show cause why he holds him in custody.

On the 11th day of October, 1937, the sheriff of Wakulla county, Fla., filed a return and attached thereto a copy of the commitment issuing out of the justice of the peace court of the Second district of Wakulla county, Fla., directing that he keep in his custody the petitioner for the purpose of trial before the county judge's court of Wakulla county at the term next ensuing, on the aforesaid criminal charge previously existing in the justice of the peace court of the Second district of Wakulla county, Fla.

It is admitted that the justice of the peace court of the Second district in and for Wakulla county, Fla., is deprived of its jurisdiction to try said cause and the trial jurisdiction thereof transferred to the county judge's court in and for Wakulla county, Fla., because of Senate Bill No. 150, Acts 1937, c. 18002, approved by the Governor on June 2, 1937, viz.:

'Senate Bill No. 150
'An Act to Amend Section 5995, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, Same Being Section 8289, Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, the Same Being Laws Fixing and Prescribing the Power and Jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace to Try and Determine Misdemeanors Committed in Their Respective Districts. The Effect of This Act Being to Abolish Trial Jurisdiction of Misdemeanors in Justices of Peace, and to Vest Same in County Judge, and Providing That All Proceedings Now Pending in the Justice of Peace Courts shall Not Be Affected By This Act, and Making Certain Exemptions For Counties in Specified Classifications.
'Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
'Section 1. That Section 5995, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, same being Section 8289, Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, be and it is hereby amended to read as follows:

"In Counties where there are no County Courts or Criminal Courts of Record, the County Judges shall have power to hold a Court to try and determine all misdemeanors committed in their respective counties, punishable by fine not exceeding Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

'Section 2. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to in any wise affect the present criminal jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in any County of the State of Florida having a population of over 50,000 according to the last preceding State census.

'Section 3. That all proceedings or cases now pending in the Justice of the Peace Courts shall not be affected by the provisions of this Act.

'Section 4. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

'Section 5. This Act shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Governor, or upon its becoming a law without such approval.'

It is here contended that Senate Bill No. 150, supra, is void and violates the constitutional rights of petitioner for the following reasons, viz.:

'(a) That said Act is unconstitutional and void for that it regulates a class and certain number of Justices of the Peace of the State of Florida in violation of section 20, article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, which provides that no special law shall be passed regulating the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers.

'(b) That said Act is a special law and is unconstitutional and void for the reason that it attempts to regulate a certain class of the Justices of the Peace in violation of section 20, article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, which provides that no special law shall be passed regulating the punishment of crime or misdemeanor.

'(c) That said special act is unconstitutional and void for the reason that it attempts to regulate the practice of Courts of Justices in violation of section 20, article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.

'(d) That said Act is unconstitutional and void for the reason that it attempts to change the venue of criminal cases in violation of section 20, article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.

'(e) That said Act violates section 11, article 5, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, in that it deprives the Circuit Court of exclusive original jurisdiction on appeal of all cases arising before Justices of the Peace in Counties in which there is no County Court.'

The Constitution of Florida provides that a justice of the peace shall hold his office for four years and that the county commissioners of each county shall divide it into as many justice districts as may be necessary but not less than two. Section 21, article 5, of the Constitution of Florida. Provisions likewise appear in the Constitution as to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and section 22 of article 5 of the Florida Constitution provides:

'The Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction in cases at law in which the demand or value of the property involved does not exceed $100.00, and in which the cause of action accrued or the defendant resides in his district; and in such criminal cases, except felonies, as may be prescribed by law, and he shall have power to issue process for the arrest of all persons charged with felonies and misdemeanors not within his jurisdiction to try, and make the same returnable before himself or the county judge for examination, discharge, commitment or bail of the accused. Justices of the peace shall have power to hold inquests of the dead. Appeal from Justices of the Peace Courts in criminal cases may be tried de novo under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe.'

It is contended that the act, supra, is void and violates the constitutional rights of the petitioner for the reason, or reasons, supra.

An unbroken line of decisions of this court hold that the power of the Legislature of a state to enact laws is always subject to the provision and limitations of our organic law and it is the duty of the courts to uphold duly enacted statutes unless it is made to appear beyond all reasonable doubt that it conflicts with some identified or designated provision or provisions of our organic law. See City of Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 So. 769, L.R.A.1916D, 913, Ann.Cas. 1915D, 99; Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Prettyman v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442.

It will be observed that the Florida Legislature has, from time to time, enacted laws controlling the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in criminal matters and was authorized so to do under section 22 of article 5 of the Florida Constitution. The act before us treats of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in criminal matters in those counties of Florida having a population of 50,000 or less, according to the last preceding state census. It does not attempt to control the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in criminal matters in counties of Florida having a population of 50,000 or more, according to the last preceding state census. It is urged here that it is a special law in its application and is void and conflicts with section 20, article 3 of the Florida Constitution, because it regulates or attempts to regulate the jurisdiction and duties of a certain class of officers, to wit, justices of the peace in counties having a population of 50,000 or less. It cannot be overlooked here that section 22 of article 5 of the Constitution clothes the Legislature with power and authority to enact laws controlling the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in 'all criminal cases' except felonies. The power or authority to enact such a law as is here in question having been settled, let us determine whether or not it is a general or special law.

This court, in the case of State ex rel. Buford v Daniel, 87 Fla. 270, 99...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sunbeam Corporation v. Masters of Miami
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 22, 1955
    ...with wisdom, necessity, or poli-cy of laws, but is responsible only for their construction and interpretation. State ex rel. Richardson v. Ferrell, 130 Fla. 26, 177 So. 181. Accord: State ex rel. Hosack v. Yocum, 136 Fla. 246, 186 So. 448, 121 A.L.R. For more recent cases, see Rotwein v. Ge......
  • Dade County v. Kerce
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1938
    ... ... authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 ... Fla. 224, 37 So. 51, that the ... See also State ex rel ... v. Ferrell, Fla., 177 So. 181 and cases cited; ... Peninsular Industrial Ins. Co ... ...
  • Cates v. Heffernan
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1944
    ... ... Florida. Ex parte Porter, 141 Fla. 711, 193 So. 750; ... State ex rel. Blalock et al. v. Lee, 146 Fla. 385, 1 ... So.2d 193; and State ... satisfied. We think State ex rel. Richardson v ... Ferrell, 130 Fla. 26, 177 So. 181; Sinclair Refining ... Co. v ... ...
  • State Ex Rel. Powell v. Leon County
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1938
    ...our attention and, therefore, I am impelled to express my views in this regard because I think the judgment in the case of State ex rel. Richardson v. Ferrell, supra, should over-ruled, but the majority of the court do not concur in this view. To hold that in misdemeanor cases in the affect......

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