Townsend v. State, A-40
Citation | 97 So.2d 712 |
Decision Date | 29 October 1957 |
Docket Number | No. A-40,A-40 |
Parties | Wade Hampton TOWNSEND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
J. C. Adkins, Jr., and Ira J. Carter, Jr., Gainesville, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Odis M. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Wade Hampton Townsend was tried and convicted in the County Judge's Court of Alachua County on a charge of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Alachua County the judgment was affirmed. He then petitioned this court for writ of certiorari to review the proceedings below on the sole ground that the trial court inter alia charged the jury as follows, thus depriving him of due process of law:
F.S. § 918.10(4), F.S.A., provides that no party may assign as error or grounds on appeal the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects, and the grounds of his objection. The record does not disclose that objection was made to the charge at any time during the course of the trial, and under such circumstances it is too late on petition for writ of certiorari or on appeal, assuming we had jurisdiction, to assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction to the jury. Fabre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.
Petitioner cites F.S. § 924.32, F.S.A., which provides inter alia that the appellate court shall 'review all instructions to which an objection was made and which are alleged as a ground of appeal,' and that 'the court may also in its discretion, if it deems the interests of justice to require, review any other things said or done in the cause which appears in the appeal papers including instructions to the jury,' which statute is tracked by Fla.App. 6.16; and petitioner ingeniously insists that notwithstanding his failure to object, these provisions of law placed on the circuit court the duty to take cognizance of the charge under attack, and that it would have necessarily followed that the trial court be reversed on the premise that the charge is the equivalent of a denial of due process of law. It will be noted that the quoted provisions of F.S. § 924.32, F.S.A., and Fla.App. Rule 6.16 are in direct conflict with F.S. § 918.10(4), F.S.A., supra.
Petitioner's contention is not sound. The order of affirmance does not indicate that the circuit court ignored the statute or the rule, and in this court the presumption is conclusive that both were considered. Moreover, the charge under attack, when considered in the light of all the charges, did not constitute harmful error.
Giving effect to and reconciling the plain language of F.S. § 918.10(4), F.S.A., with the quoted portion of F.S. § 924.32, F.S.A., and he related portion of Fla.App. Rule 6.16 we hold that the circuit, courts when sitting as courts of appeal have unassailable discretion to review or not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Christian v. Rudd, W--313
...the administration of justice.' (186 So.2d at page 43) (See also State v. Smith, Fla.App.1st 1960, 118 So.2d 792; and Townsend v. State, Fla.App.1st 1957, 97 So.2d 712) In Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.2nd 1963, 155 So.2d 745, our sister court of the Second District said, relative to the grant......
-
State v. Katz
...a second appeal. The common law writ of certiorari was not meant for and may not be diverted to such purpose. See Townsend v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 712, 713; 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, § 25. On such certiorari we must restrict our consideration within those limits which have been well ......
-
Turner v. State, 67-511
...778, 10 So.2d 436; Thornton v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 443, 196 So. 842; Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367; Townsend v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 712; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 737; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 379; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, ......
-
Sossin Systems, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 72--185
...is not authorized. Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30, 76 So. 341, 342; Brinson v. Tharin, 99 Fla. 696, 127 So. 313, 316; Townsend v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 712, 713; State v. Katz, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 60, 61. On a petition for certiorari directed to a judgment of an inferior court rend......