STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
KAREN L. WHIRLEY, 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.
Florida petitions for certiorari to quash a circuit court order granting a jury trial to Karen Whirley for a municipal ordinance violation. The court clarifies that Smith v. City of Lakeland does not require jury trials for municipal ordinance violations and that Whirley is not entitled to a jury trial because the maximum penalty does not elevate the offense beyond petty offense status.
A defendant is entitled to a jury trial for a violation of a municipal ordinance only if the penalty imposed removes the offense from the category of petty offenses under Baldwin v. New York. Because Whirley faced a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $500 fine, she is not entitled to a jury trial.
[1] A constitutional right to a jury trial does not exist for the violation of a municipal ordinance.
[2] A defendant charged with violating both a city ordinance and a state statute is entitled to a jury trial only if the potential penalty classifies the offense as non-petty…
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“There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for violation of a municipal ordinance, State v. Webb, 335 So.2d 826 (Fla.1976), and Smith v. City of Lakeland does not confer a new and broader right to trial by jury.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that municipal ordinance violations do not carry constitutional jury trial rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhirley was arrested and charged with driving under the influence under both a Tampa city ordinance and state statute. Her attorney filed a motion for…
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 Municipal Ordinance Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The State of Florida petitions for a writ of common law certiorari to quash a circuit court order requiring a jury trial for respondent, Karen Whirley, in Hillsborough County Court for violation of a municipal ordinance of the City of Tampa. We have jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and article V, section 4(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972). 1
A Tampa police officer arrested Whirley on December 30,1980, and charged her with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, barbiturates, or other stimulants in violation of section 316.-193(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and Tampa City Code, section 39-2(b). On February 12, 1981, her attorney filed a motion for jury trial and on February 23, the assistant state attorney dropped the original charge and charged her with driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level in violation of section 316.193(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
The county 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 would not be required if the same offense was charged as a violation of a state statute. We take this opportunity to clarify our intent in Smith v. City of Lakeland. There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for violation óf a municipal ordinance, State v. Webb, 335 So. 2d 826 (Fla.1976), and Smith v. City of Lakeland does not confer a new and broader right to trial by jury. Although the right to trial by jury was an issue before us in Smith, we were chiefly concerned with Judge Green’s ruling that Smith had waived his right to trial by jury by failing to file a transfer petition pursuant to section 932.61(2), Florida Statutes (1979). That statute allows a person charged with a municipal or county ordinance violation for which no-jury trial is provided to transfer the offense to an appropriate court that could provide a jury trial when the offense also violates state law. In light of the abolition of municipal courts whereby all municipal ordinance violations are tried in county courts, we saw no need to require compliance with this statute to effectuate a right to jury trial, assuming such a right exists in any particular case.
When one is charged with a violation of both a city ordinance and a state statute, one is entitled to a trial by jury only if the penalty imposed removes the offense from the category of petty offenses defined in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970). Because the maximum sentence that could be imposed on Whirley for violating section 316.193(3) does not exceed six months in jail and a $500 fine, she is not entitled to a trial by jury. We therefore grant certiorari and quash the decision of the circuit court, hoping that this will lay to rest any further misconceptions regarding our opinion in Smith v. City of Lakeland.
DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whirley v. State, 450 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1984)…PER CURIAM. This cause, State v. Whirley, 421 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), is before us as conflicting with Powers v. State, 370 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 379 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1979). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Petitioner was arrested on December 30, 1980, and cha…
-
Caverly v. State, 436 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…ion of our opinion concerning the procedural posture in which we reviewed the trial court’s decision. The state further suggests that in granting appellant Russell G. Caverly a jury trial, our decision conflicts with our holding in State v. Whirley, 421 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). As noted in our opinion, appellant was charged with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages in violation of section 316.193(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), and the county court denied his timely request for a jur…
-
State v. Reed, 448 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ry trial under section 932.61, Florida Statutes (1977), for the violation of a city ordinance which was the same as a statutory offense. It did not base its holding on the state constitution or rule 3.251. In the most recent case, State v. Whirley, 421 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review granted, case no. 62,948, our sister court held that a person charged with the violation of section 316.193(1), Florida Statutes (1981), driving under the influence of alcohol, which was also in violation of a city ordinan…
Authorities Cited
- Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1970)
- State v. Webb, 335 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1976)
- Smith v. City OF Lakeland, 392 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)