State v. Atwell, 47
| Decision Date | 25 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 47,47 |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 125 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Arthur Ray ATWELL, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
R. B. Huffaker, State's Atty., Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Clifton M. Kelly, County Solicitor, Lakeland, and Monte J. Tillis, Jr., Asst. County Solicitor, Bartow, for petitioner.
L. D. Oxford (of Oxford & Oxford), Lakeland, for respondent.
Arthur Ray Atwell, respondent here, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record, Polk County, Florida, of driving an automobile while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. The Judge of the Criminal Court of Record sentenced the respondent to be confined in the County Jail of Polk County, Florida, at hard labor for a term of 90 days and pay court costs.
An appeal was duly taken from said judgment and sentence and on May 6, 1955, the Circuit Judge before whom the appeal was argued, entered an order in said appeal which amended and modified the judgment and sentence of the Criminal Court Judge and provided that the respondent was to pay a fine of $100 in lieu of confinement.
A motion for rehearing was filed which the Circuit Judge denied, and on June 10, 1957, a mandate was directed to the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record commanding the Judge of said court to comply with the judgment of said Circuit Court.
Petition for certiorari was filed by the State of Florida, which, in effect, questioned the authority of the Circuit Judge to change the sentence of the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record.
It was held in the case of State ex rel. Krauss v. Chillingworth, 1924, 88 Fla. 468, 103 So. 120, that a Circuit Judge does not have the power to change a sentence of a Judge of the County Court, which decision would be also applicable to the sentence of the Judge of a Criminal Court of Record. As a matter of fact, it was not contended by the Respondent that the order of the Circuit Judge was valid in this case. The objections offered to the petition for writ of certiorari being primarily (1) that the writ should be denied because the State had the right to appeal from the Circuit Judge's order and, therefore, certiorari would not lie. (2) That the judgment entered in the case by the Circuit Judge was not final and, therefore, certiorari would not lie.
Section 924.07, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., provides the only grounds upon which the State may appeal in a criminal case. None of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pettis
...So.2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957) (granting certiorari review of order from circuit court acting in its appellate capacity); State v. Atwell, 97 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957) (holding that section 924.07 does not limit state's right to seek certiorari review and granting review of order from circ......
-
State v. G.P.
...So.2d 821 (Fla.1962); State v. Katz, 108 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), State v. Staley, 97 So.2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957); State v. Atwell, 97 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). Having examined the historical underpinnings of the district courts' power of certiorari, we conclude that the courts' re......
-
State v. Harris, 31209
...by the state for common law certiorari in criminal proceedings and quashed judgments of circuit courts entered therein. State v. Atwell, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 125 and State v. Staley, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 147. This again indicates that the state has been considered to have the right to s......
-
State v. Ragsdale
...he considered a more effective sentence in the case is beyond the scope of the appellate powers of the circuit court. See State v. Atwell, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 125; and Wilkinson v. State, Fla.App.1975, 322 So.2d 620, and authorities cited therein. We, therefore, hold that the quoted sect......