State v. Young, 39270
| Decision Date | 27 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 39270,39270 |
| Citation | 238 So.2d 589 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Phillip YOUNG, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Kelly, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.
James M. Wallace, W. Bradenton, for appellee.
The single issue presented in this direct appeal brought by the State is the constitutionality of Section 14, Chapter 69--111, Fla.Stat. Appellee, defendant below, was convicted of a traffic offense by the Court of Record, Manatee County, and upon adjudication of guilt, a fine of $30.00, and costs, or ten days in the county jail, was imposed upon him. He was also assessed one dollar in accordance with Section 14, Supra.
After consideration of appellee's objection to this latter assessment on constitutional grounds, the trial judge entered an order pronouncing Section 14 null and void principally because allegedly violative of the separation of powers doctrine found in Article II, Section 3, Fla.Const. (1968), F.S.A. The initial judgment was then revised so as to delete reference to the levy of the Section 14 assessment. We reverse the order from which this appeal is taken.
Section 14, Chapter 69--111, Fla.Stat. reads as follows:
Appellee has marshalled his arguments supporting the Court of Record order carefully. He has cited cases wherein enactments placing assessments on the docketing of suits have been struck down as impediments on the right to free access to the courts. Flood v. State, ex rel. Homeland Co., 95 Fla. 1003, 117 So. 385 (1928); Malin v. La Moure County, 27 N.D. 140, 145 N.W. 582 (1916). He has cited cases where relatively similar enactments have been invalidated because the courts have construed the assessments to be taxes; for example, Ex parte Coffelt, 93 Okl.Cr. 343, 228 P.2d 199 (1951). And citation has been made to cases wherein enactments declaring an assessment to be a court cost have been nullified because in reality no relationship existed between the assessments and the costs actually incurred through litigation; for example, Ex parte Carson, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 159...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LeCroy v. Hanlon
...does not violate the open courts provision. See Farabee v. Board of Trustees, Lee County Law Library, 254 So.2d at 5; State v. Young, 238 So.2d 589, 590 (Fla.1970); Crocker v. Finley, 77 Ill.Dec. at 101-02, 459 N.E.2d at 1350-51; Ali v. Danaher, 47 Ill.2d 231, 265 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1970). Su......
-
Allen v. State, 01-16-00768-CR
...relationship’ between the type of offense" underlying the conviction and the cost of court being assessed, id. (discussing State v. Young , 238 So.2d 589 (Fla. 1970) ).The Peraza Court concluded that the existing Texas standard of necessary/incidental was "too limiting" because there can be......
-
U.S. v. American Theater Corp.
...the Clerk's decision to the trial court as is their right under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.6 See State v. Young, 238 So.2d 589 (Fla.) appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 962, 91 S.Ct. 366, 27 L.Ed.2d 381 (1970); State v. Thomson, 188 Kan. 171, 360 P.2d 871 (1961); Kincaid v. ......
-
State v. Champe, 53811
...of crimes, and that costs must be expenses incident to case prosecution. The latter contention was specifically rejected in State v. Young, 238 So.2d 589 (Fla.1970). As to the former, the five percent surcharge in Section 960.25 may quite properly be considered as a form of punishment for t......