ALTON ADERHOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal transferred jurisdiction to the Florida Supreme Court because the trial court initially and directly passed upon the constitutionality of the habitual offender statute, which requires direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Florida Constitution Article V, Section 3(b)(1).
When a trial court initially and directly passes upon the constitutionality of a state statute, jurisdiction over the appeal lies exclusively with the Florida Supreme Court, not the district court of appeal.
[1] When a trial court initially and directly passes upon the constitutionality of a state statute, jurisdiction over the appeal vests exclusively in the Florida Supreme Cour…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Aderhold appealed a conviction, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's habitual offender statute (§ 775.084, 1977), and the trial co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Direct Appeal To Supreme Court cases and more on FLexlaw
'PER CURIAM.
In this appeal the defendant/appellant maintains that the habitual offender statute, Florida Statute § 775.084, 1977, is unconstitutional. The constitutional attack was urged before the trial court and the trial court specifically upheld the constitutionality of the statute. Florida Constitution Article V, Section 3(b)(1) specifically provides that appeals may be taken directly to the Florida Supreme Court from decisions of trial courts initially and directly passing upon the constitutionality of a state statute. To the same effect is Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(l)(A)(ii).
It, therefore, appears that the trial court herein initially passed upon the constitutional validity in question and that jurisdiction of this matter is properly within the Florida Supreme Court. See In re Estate of Brown, 114 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1960), and Smith v. Martin, 186 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1966). .Therefore, in accordance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(b), jurisdiction of this matter is hereby transferred to the Florida Supreme Court. The Clerk of this Court shall transfer all papers filed herein to the Florida Supreme Court and said transfer shall be effected ten days from the date of this opinion.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., and FAR-RINGTON, OTIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alton Aderhold v. State, 387 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1980)…[*965] PER CURIAM. This appeal was transferred to us by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 369 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), because the trial court upheld the constitutionality of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977). The trial court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of section 775.084 is consistent with our holding in Eutsey v. State, 383…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Daniel Emmitt Brown v. Robinson, 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1960)
- In re Est. of Daniel Emmitt Brown v. Robinson, 114 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Smith v. Exerdell B. Martin and Albert C. Martin, 186 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1966)