JAMES H. SMITH, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF LAKELAND, RESPONDENT
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.
James Smith was charged with a municipal traffic ordinance violation that also violated state law and was denied a jury trial in county court. The Florida appellate court held that Smith had a statutory right to a jury trial under Section 932.61 and that no petition for transfer was required because the county court itself now provides jury trial jurisdiction, unlike the municipal courts for which the statute was originally enacted.
Smith was entitled to a jury trial because the offense constituted a violation of both a municipal ordinance and state law, triggering his statutory right under Section 932.61. No petition for transfer was necessary because the county court, unlike the former municipal courts for which Section 932.61 was enacted, now provides jury trial jurisdiction.
[1] A person charged with violating a municipal ordinance that is also a violation of state law has a statutory right to a jury trial.
[2] A defendant charged with a municipal ordinance violation that is also a state law violation is entitled to a jury trial in county court, even without filing a formal peti…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“pursuant to Section 932.61, Florida Statutes (1979), a person charged with violation of a municipal ordinance for which no jury trial is provided may, when the violation of the ordinance is also a violation of state law, cause the transfer of the violation to the appropriate court in which trial by jury is provided”
Establishes the statutory basis for Smith's right to jury trial when a municipal ordinance violation also violates state law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was charged in county court with violating a municipal traffic ordinance by violating Section 322.34, Florida Statutes (1979). He entered a writ…
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 County Court cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
James H. Smith, Jr., petitions for writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order affirming the county court’s judgment, sentence and denial of his demand for jury trial. We hold that Smith was entitled to a jury trial and, therefore, grant certiorari. Smith was charged in county court with violation of a municipal traffic ordinance by violating Section 322.34, Florida Statutes (1979). He entered a written not guilty plea, which included a request for a trial by jury. The county court denied Smith’s request for jury trial. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the county court.
It is clear that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for violation of a municipal traffic ordinance. State v. Webb, 335 So. 2d 826 (Fla.1976). However, pursuant to Section 932.61, Florida Statutes (1979), a person charged with violation of a municipal ordinance for which no jury trial is provided may, when the violation of the ordinance is also a violation of state law, cause the transfer of the violation to the appropriate court in which trial by jury is provided. This court has construed Section 932.61 to confer a statutory right to jury trial when the violation of a municipal ordinance is also a violation of state law. City of Tampa v. Ippolito, 360 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Applying the Ippolito holding to the instant case, Smith was entitled to a jury trial, because the offense charged constituted a violation of both a municipal ordinance and a state law. See also Powers v. State, 370 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The city argues that Smith waived his statutory right to jury trial because he did not file a petition for transfer in accordance with Section 932.61(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Addressing this argument, we note that Section 932.61 was enacted in 1970, prior to the abolition of municipal courts. Art. V, § 20(d)(4), Fla.Const. Therefore, on the date of enactment of Section 932.61, violations of municipal ordinances were within the jurisdiction of municipal courts. Jurisdiction over municipal ordinance violations is now in the county court. Art. V, § 20(c)(4), Fla.Const. Because the county court, unlike the former municipal courts, provides trial by jury, we find it unnecessary for a person charged with a violation of a municipal ordinance which is also a violation of a state law to file a petition for transfer to another court in order to effectuate his statutory right to jury trial.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the circuit court’s order of affirmance with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Estech, Inc., 515 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…thority v. Alderman, 238 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). But see, e.g., Hobbs v. Florida First Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 480 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc., 421 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Smith v. City of Lakeland, 392 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In any event, under our "all writs" jurisdiction we have authority to treat the petition as if the correct remedy had been sought. Article V, §§ 2(a), 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.…
-
State v. Whirley, 421 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…y judge, finding that Whirley was not entitled to a jury trial, denied the motion, found her guilty as charged, and sentenced her to ten days in the Hillsbor-ough County Jail. Whirley appealed and the circuit judge, citing Smith v. City of Lakeland, 392 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), in support, reversed the county court and ordered a jury trial. We understand that Smith v. City of Lakeland has been construed by some to require a jury trial for a violation of a municipal ordinance even though a jury trial wo…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Webb, 335 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1976)
- Anne Powers v. State, 370 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- City OF Tampa v. Emilio Ippolito, 360 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)