State v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 14 February 1928 |
| Citation | 116 So. 255,95 Fla. 191 |
| Parties | STATE v. SULLIVAN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Application by Clarence Sullivan for habeas corpus to be directed to the Sheriff of Hillsborough County. Judgment discharging the petitioner from custody, and the State brings error.
Reversed and petitioner ordered remanded to custody.
Syllabus by the Court
Constitutional amendment authorizing Legislature to establish courts held to repeal and modify parts of Constitution (Const. art. 5, §§ 1, 9, 35). The authorization of 'such other courts or commissions as the Legislature may from time to time ordain and establish' was an amendment to section 1 of article 5 of the Constitution adopted in 1914. This amendment had a material effect on other sections of article 5. It repealed section 9 in toto and modified section 1 and section 35 as amended in 1910, so to enable the Legislature to establish additional courts and commissions.
Constitutional amendment authorizing Legislature to establish courts held to authorize Legislature to prescribe and regulate their jurisdiction within limits specified (Const. art. 5, § 1). In authorizing additional courts and commissions, the 1914 amendment to article 5 necessarily authorized the Legislature to prescribe and regulate the jurisdiction thereof within the limitations contained in said article 5 affecting the jurisdiction of courts already enumerated and established thereby.
Constitutional grant of 'jurisdiction of all criminal cases not capital' to certain courts held not grant of exclusive jurisdiction in such cases (Const. art. 5, § 25). We do not understand the words 'Jurisdiction of all criminal cases not capital,' as used in section 25 of article 5 of the Constitution, defining the jurisdiction of criminal courts of record, to imply or to be equivalent to 'exclusive' jurisdiction in such causes.
Circuit courts and Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction in certain matters (Const. art. 5, §§ 5, 11, 17, 18, 21). Under sections 5, 11, 17, 18, and 21, of article 5 of the Constitution, circuit courts and the Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction in certain matters.
Circuit courts have 'exclusive' original jurisdiction in all cases in equity, also in all cases at law, not cognizable by inferior courts, and in all cases involving the legality of any tax, assessment, or toll; of the action of ejectment and of all actions involving the title or boundaries of real estate, and all criminal cases not cognizable by inferior courts; and original jurisdiction of actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and of such other matter as the Legislature may provide.
Two or more courts may have concurrent jurisdiction of same subject-matter; when Constitution or statute vests jurisdiction in tribunal without making it exclusive Legislature may vest like jurisdiction in another court or tribunal. Two or more courts may have concurrent jurisdiction of the same subject-matter. The rule is well settled that when the Constitution or the statute in specific terms vests jurisdiction in any tribunal without the qualifying term 'exclusive,' or words of equivalent import, the Legislature may in its discretion vest the like jurisdiction in another court or tribunal.
Legislature's power to create courts and commissions necessarily implies power to give them jurisdiction to hear and determine cases legally presented (Const. art. 5, § 1). The power to create 'such other courts or commissions as the Legislature may from time to time ordain and establish' necessarily implies the power to clothe said courts or commissions which may be established with jurisdiction to hear and determine such causes as may be legally presented to them.
As long as jurisdiction of courts named in Constitution is not exclusive, Legislature may vest such courts or commissions as it establishes with jurisdiction original or concurrent with jurisdiction of courts recognized in Constitution (Const art. 5, § 1). So long as the jurisdiction of courts named in the Constitution is not exclusive, it is within the power of the Legislature to vest such courts or commissions as it may see fit to establish with jurisdiction original or concurrent with the jurisdiction of those courts recognized in the Constitution.
Power to create courts held to give Legislature authority to provide court of crimes in Hillsborough county and to give it certain jurisdiction (Const. art. 5, § 1; Laws 1927, c 11975). The power to create 'such other courts and commissions as the Legislature may from time to time ordain and establish' was ample authority for the Legislature to provide a court of crimes in Hillsborough county and to clothe it with jurisdiction concurrent with the criminal court of record in all cases of misdemeanor.
'Shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with criminl court of record in all cases of misdemeanors' held to determine jurisdiction of court of crimes (Const. art. 5, § 1; Laws 1927, c. 11975). The words 'shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the criminal court of record in all cases of misdemeanors' determines the jurisdiction of the court of crimes.
Legislative intent should be followed even though it appears to contradict strict letter of statute and wellsettled canons of statutory construction; no literal interpretation should be given statute leading to unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion or purpose not designed by legislators. In statutory construction legislative intent is the pole star by which we must be guided, and this intent must be given effect even though it may appear to contradict the strict letter of the statute and well-settled canons of constructions No literal interpretation should be given that leads to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion or to a purpose not designed by the law-markers.
Population is reasonable basis for classification in establishing courts; Legislature by general law may create court of crimes in counties composing judicial circuit having two or more judges and population of more than 100,000 (Const. art. 5, § 1; Laws 1927, c. 11975). Population is recognized by the law as a reasonable basis for classification. If it is competent for the Legislature to create by general or special law a court of crimes in any county of the state, then it must be competent to create them in such counties as compose a judicial circuit having two or more judges and a population of more than 100,000.
Classifications adopted by Legislature must bear some relation to act and subject regulated; power to create additional courts or commissions is exclusively legislative function; creating courts of crimes in counties composing judicial circuit having two or more judges and population of more than 100,000 held not abuse of Legislature's discretion in classification (Const. art. 5, § 1; Laws 1927, c. 11975). Classifications adopted by the Legislature cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable, they must bear some just relation to the act and the subject regulated; but the question of classification becomes unimportant here, because the power to create additional courts or commissions is exclusively a legislative function and there is no showing of an abuse of this discretion.
Amendment to Constitution held to give Legislature power to create additional courts or commissions to aid or supplement those already provided when need is pressing (Const. art. 5, § 1). The 1914 amendment to section 1 of article 5 of the Constitution relaxed the terms of article 5 and vested in the Legislature power to create additional courts and commissions, to aid or supplement those already provided when the need for them was pressing.
If the jurisdiction of criminal courts of record was 'exclusive' as to all criminal cases not capital, in the absence of the 1914 amendment to section 1 of article 5 of the Constitution this case might be ruled by the doctrine announced in State ex rel. West v. Butler, 70 Fla. 102, 69 So. 771.
Statute is presumed valid. One seeking to strike down an act of the Legislature is in the outset confronted with the presumption that it is valid, that all doubts as to its constitutionality must be resolved in favor of its validity, and that the terms of the act must be construed to effect the legislative intent if that be possible.
Legislature having power to create court of crimes has implied power to provide for incidents necessary thereto (Const. art. 5, § 1; Laws 1927, c. 11975). Since the Legislature has the power to create a court of crimes and invest it with concurrent jurisdiction with the criminal court of record in all cases of misdemeanors as provided by chapter 11975, Laws of Florida 1927, the power also exists in the Legislature by necessary implication to provide for all necessary incidents without which the court could not be properly organized and without which it could not properly function.
Statutory provisions as to certifying misdemeanor cases to court of crimes when considered as directory held not to deprive criminal court of record of part of its constitutional jurisdiction (Laws 1927, c. 11975; Const. art. 5). When construed as directory only, and not mandatory, those portions of chapter 11975, Laws of Florida 1927, relating to the certification of misdemeanor cases to the court of crimes, do not offend against the Constitution as depriving the criminal court of record of a part of its constitutional jurisdiction.
'Jurisdiction' is power of court to hear and determine cause; court's jurisdiction may exist although no cases are assigned to it for trial. 'Jurisdiction' is the power of a court to hear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waybright v. Duval County
... ... Thousand and Not More Than One Hundred Eighty Thousand ... According to the Last Florida State Census, or Any Subsequent ... State or Federal Census'. The words quoted from the title ... which we have italicized are the ones which provoked ... Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377, 20 Ann.Cas ... 1047; Campbell v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 632, 43 ... So. 874; State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So ... 255; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; ... State v. Rose, 97 Fla. 710, 122 So. 225; State ... v. Burns, 38 ... ...
-
Florida Export Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue
...Dade County, 418 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 430 So.2d 451 (Fla.1983). So.2d 769 (1948); State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255 (1928). We likewise agree that such "quasi-judicial jurisdiction" could, by general law expressly so providing, embrace disputes over......
-
Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Englar
...89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104; State v. Walton County, 93 Fla. 796, 112 So. 630; Hiers v. Mitchell, 95 Fla. 345, 116 So. 81; State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255; Broward v. Broward, 96 Fla. 131, 117 So. State v. Knight, 98 Fla. 891, 124 So. 461. See also, 25 R. C. L. 1009. We have also he......
-
Maddox v. State
...many years ago, "no literal interpretation should be given that lends to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion." State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255, 261 (1928); see also State v. Burris, 875 So.2d 408, 414 (Fla.2004) (stating, more recently, that "[a] statute's plain and ordinar......