State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 74--235
| Decision Date | 08 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--235,74--235 |
| Citation | 291 So.2d 74 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida ex rel. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Florida Division of Corrections, Relator, v. John W. BOOTH, as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Daniel S. Dearing, Chief Trial Counsel; and Raymond W. Gearey, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for relator.
T. Richard Hagin of Getzen & Hagin, P.A., Bushnell, for respondent.
Louie L. Wainwright, Director Florida Division of Corrections (relator), has filed a suggestion for writ of prohibition seeking to block further enforcement of an order entered by the Honorable John W. Booth, Circuit Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida (respondent).
The controversy centers around the security difficulties in the handling of five defendants during a trial to be held before the respondent in the Sumter County Courthouse in Bushnell beginning March 18, 1974. The defendants are to be tried for murder allegedly committed while they were incarcerated in the Sumter Correctional Institution in Sumter County.
Having concluded that Sumter County did not have adequate manpower or facilities to provide proper housing, security guards and transportation, respondent entered an order directing the sheriffs of his circuit and the relator to deliver the defendants in their custody to the Superintendent of the Sumter Correctional Institution on March 11, 1974, where they are to be held until further order of the court. The order further requires relator to provide daily transportation of these defendants to and from the Sumter County Courthouse during their trials and to supply a contingent of at least seven correctional officers to be responsible for courtroom security under the supervision of respondent.
In an affidavit attached to relator's petition, the Superintendent of Sumter Correctional Institution states that the maximum security area of his institution where persons such as these defendants would have to be housed is completely full and that he could not provide seven correctional officers during the period of the trial without seriously jeopardizing the security of his institution. The problem is compounded by the fact that several of his officers have been subpoenaed to appear as witnesses at the trial. Understandably, the superintendent believes it imperative that the defendants be kept separate from the rest of the inmates at the institution, some of whom are scheduled to be witnesses at the trial.
Thus, it appears that both sides, faced with a difficult problem and motivated by a legitimate concern, have taken conflicting positions from which they are unwilling to retreat. We are called upon to resolve this conflict.
At the outset, it is necessary to consider the propriety of the remedy sought by relator. Traditionally, the writ of prohibition has been employed to prevent the commission of a future act. Jennings v. Frederick, 1939, 137 Fla. 773, 189 So. 1. Prohibition is to prevent a tribunal from taking action in excess of its power while certiorari is to remedy the consequent evils of such action. Lorenzo v. Murphy, 1947, 159 Fla. 639, 32 So.2d 421. Since relator attacks the validity of an order previously entered, we believe certiorari to be the more appropriate remedy. We have, therefore, elected to consider relator's petition as a petition for certiorari. While not a party to the case below, relator has sufficient standing to file this petition since the order is specifically directed toward him. Mackenzie v. Hillsborough County, Fla.1973, 288 So.2d 200; Dade County v. Strauss, Fla.App.3rd, 1971, 246 So.2d 137.
It comes as no surprise that there is scant legal precedent to guide us in making our decision on the merits. Relator insists that respondent has no authority to require him to house the defendants during their trials, to transport them to and from the courthouse or to exercise custody over them in the courtroom. He suggests that the responsibility for these duties necessarily rests upon the Sheriff of Sumter County.
Respondent relies upon his inherent power as a circuit judge to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of his jurisdiction. Cf. Petition of Florida Bar, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 646. He argues that since the sheriff is not equipped to maintain effective security under these circumstances, it was reasonable for him to require assistance from the best and most available source, to-wit: the Division of Corrections. Implicit in res...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State, 64042
... ... Bird, 149 Fla. 520, 6 So.2d 541 (1942); State ex rel. Bludworth v. Kapner, 394 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Farmer, ... Wilcox, 351 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, ... 291 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Coyle, 181 ... ...
-
R.L.B. v. State
...DCA 1980); State v. Gibson, 353 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); State v. Wilcox, 351 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Williams, 237 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf......
-
State v. Farmer, 80-379
...4, 1980, was a material departure from the essential requirements of law. Certiorari is the proper remedy. See State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. discharged, 300 So.2d 257 (Fla.1974). In addition, the suggestion for writ of prohibition has affirmativel......
-
State, Dept. of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 96-2551
...order promulgated by chief judge exceeded his jurisdiction), review denied, 652 So.2d 816 (Fla.1995); State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So.2d 74, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA) ("Prohibition is to prevent a tribunal from taking action in excess of its power while certiorari is to remedy the conseque......