State v. Hayes
Citation | 333 So.2d 51 |
Decision Date | 11 June 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 75--1034,75--1034 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Primus HAYES, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and Gerald A. McGill, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and James R. Merola, Special Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
A two count information was filed against defendant charing him with (1) breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny, and (2) petty larceny.
Defendant moved to dismiss the Information under Rule 3.190(c)(4), F.R.Cr.P. The stipulated facts were:
'1. The home of Thomas Wright located at 1601 N.E.1st Court, Boynton Beach, Florida, was broken into and property was taken on or about October 28, 1974.
'2. During police investigation a latent fingerprint matching that of Defendant's rolled print was found on a jalousie window which was found in the bushes near Mr. Wright's home.
'3. The State cannot determine when the latent print was made.
'4. Mr. Wright has never given the Defendant permission to be on his premises.
'5. Mr. Wright's house was up for sale for a period of six months, including the month of October, 1974. A 'For Sale' sign was located on the front lawn and Berg Realty had permission to show the house. There is no evidence whether the house was ever shown to the Defendant.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the Information, stating:
The state appeals. We affirm.
We are faced with two points on appeal. The first is particularly provocative and apparently one of first impression in Florida. The state cited no case in support of its argument of it.
Is a Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Circuit of Florida 'bound' by the decision of a District Court of Appeal other than the Fourth District Court of Appeal?
We opine and answer the question in the affirmative by flatly stating that a Circuit Court wheresoever situate in Florida is equally bound by a decision of a District Court of Appeal regardless of its appellate district.
The basic principle:
The purpose of the rule is to preserve harmony and stability and predictability in the law, Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corporation, 102 So.2d 596 (Fla.1958); Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., 68 So.2d 180 (Fla.1953), See 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 183 et seq. The doctrine is generally applied to courts of last resort, See United States Steel Corporation No Florida case has spoken directly to this issue, See Bunn v. Bunn, 311 So.2d 387, 389 (4th DCA Fla.1975) ()
v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9 (Fla.1974). In Florida the District Courts of Appeal are courts of final appellate jurisdiction except for a narrow classification of cases made reviewable by the Florida Supreme Court, Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So.2d 808 (Fla.1958); Taylor v. Knight, 234 So.2d 156 (1st DCA Fla.1970). The District Courts of Appeal are required to follow Supreme Court decisions. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). As an adjunct to this rule it is logical and necessary in order to preserve stability and predictability in the law that, likewise, trial courts be required to follow the holdings of higher courts 1--District Courts of Appeal. The proper hierarchy of decisional holdings would demand that in the event the only case on point on a district court level is from a district other than the one in which the trial court is located, the trial court be required to follow that decision, See 21 C.J.S. Courts § 196, § 198. Alternatively, if the district court of the district in which the trial court is located has decided the issue, the trial court is bound to follow it, 21 C.J.S. Courts, supra. Contrarily, as between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district's opinion is merely persuasive. Spencer Ladd's, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So.2d 731 (1st DCA Fla.1964), modified on different grounds at 182 So.2d 402 (Fla.1965).
Courts in other jurisdictions have decided this issue. In People v. Blount, 82 Misc.2d 964, 370 N.Y.S.2d 437 (Nassau County Ct. N.Y.1975), the court noted:
'Where a question has not yet been decided by the appellate courts in a certain department, inferior courts in that department must follow the determinations of the appellate courts in any other department until such time as their own appellate tribunals or the Court of Appeals passes upon the question.' Id. at 442.
Likewise, the court in Garcia v. Hynes & Howes Real Estate, Inc., 29 Ill.App.3d 479, 331 N.E.2d 634 (3rd DCA 1975), held that the '. . . opinions of any Appellate Court necessarily are binding on all Circuit Courts across the State, but not on the other branches of the Appellate Court.' Id. at 636. The court then set forth the following ranking, Id.
One further illustration is Hale v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 15 Cal.3d 221, 124 Cal.Rptr. 57, 539 P.2d 817 (1975). In a footnote the court states, 'Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state . . ..' Id. 124 Cal.Rptr. at 62, 539 P.2d at 822.
These cases set forth the hierarchy best designed to promote judicial stability and predictability. Therefore, in the absence of a contrary Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion a Palm Beach County Circuit Court is bound to follow an opinion of another District Court of Appeal, such as a First District Court of Appeal opinion. This would also promote the constitutional provision that the Supreme Court hear cases
in which there is conflict between the District Courts of Appeal. Hence, if a circuit court is bound to follow a 'foreign' district's decision, on appeal the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jardines
...court [is] required to follow that [other district's] decision." Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992) (quoting State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)). The only decision squarely addressing a dog sniff at the front door of a private home was Rabb, and the trial court cor......
-
Graham v. Langley
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1994), approved, 658 So.2d 928 (Fla.1995); Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (if district court sitting in trial court's district has not spoken on an issue, but another district court has, trial c......
-
State v. Steffani
...personal disagreement with them. See Holmes v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 369 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Second, with amazing prescience, it contains legal reasoning which is virtually identical to that adopted both by the fourth d......
-
Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms
...Matter of Johnson, 93 A.D.2d 1, 16, 460 N.Y.S.2d 932, revd. on other grounds 59 N.Y.2d 461, 465 N.Y.S.2d 900, 452 N.E.2d 1228; State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51, 53 Glasco Elec. Co. v. Department of Revenue, 87 Ill.App.3d 1070, 42 Ill.Dec. 896, 409 N.E.2d 511, affd. 86 Ill.2d 346, 56 Ill.Dec. 10......
-
What Florida's New Sixth District Court Of Appeal Means For You
...courts." However, "as between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district's opinion is merely persuasive." Id. Citing State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Unless the Florida Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, the Sixth District Court of Appeal will have a blank slate up......
-
Castles-and Roads-in the Sand: Do All Roads Lead to a 'Taking'?
...(citing to Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)).181. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666-67 (Fla. 1992) (citing State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1976)).Copyright © 2018 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http:/......
-
Tax Penalties After V MOB: What to Know and How to Fight Back.
...pursue its rights in either circuit court or in DOAH. (38) See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1992) (quoting State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) ("[I]f the district court of the district in which the trial court is located has decided the issue, the trial court ......