DANIEL FIESELMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; ALVIN WILLIAMS, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court consolidated two cases to resolve conflicting district court decisions regarding the reviewability of circuit court orders that reverse county court dismissals. The Court held that certiorari review is available when a circuit court reverses a county court's order granting a motion to dismiss, and clarified jurisdictional limitations on circuit court appeals.
Certiorari review is available when a circuit court reverses a county court order granting a motion to dismiss. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the county court's order in Williams because only district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from county court decisions. The Court approved the Fieselman district court decision and disapproved the Baker precedent.
[1] Circuit courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from county court decisions declaring statutes unconstitutional.
[2] Appeals from county court orders declaring statutes unconstitutional must be heard by district courts.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The decision of a trial court denying dismissal affects only the immediate parties and they can seek eventual redress through plenary appeal of the final judgment. When a circuit court reverses a county court order of dismissal, on the other hand, the circuit court is acting in its appellate capacity and its decision is binding on all county courts within the circuit.”
Establishes the distinction between denials of dismissal and reversals of dismissals, supporting certiorari review for the latter category
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn Williams, a county court dismissed a littering charge as unconstitutional; the circuit court reversed and remanded. In Fieselman, a county court di…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review two cases: Fieselman v. State, 537 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), based upon conflict with Baker v. State, 518 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and Williams v. State, 540 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), based upon conflict with Fieselman and Mitchell v. State, 538 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We have jurisdiction over these consolidated cases. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the opinion of the district court below in Fieselman and quash that in Williams.
WILLIAMS
Williams was charged in county court with littering; the court dismissed the charge, ruling the statute unconstitutional. The state appealed to the circuit court, which reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charges. Williams petitioned for certiorari before the district court, which declined to exercise review. The court based its decision upon its prior ruling in Baker, wherein it said that “an order denying a motion to dismiss or a circuit court opinion reversing an order granting a motion to dismiss, both ... amount to the same thing. An adequate remedy by appeal, if conviction ensues, is available.” Baker, 518 So. 2d at 458.
We granted review of Williams based upon conflict. Upon review, however, we have determined that this case was improperly before the circuit court. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the county court order finding the anti-litter law unconstitutional.1 Only the district courts can hear such appeals from county courts. Art. V § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. Accordingly, we declare the circuit court decision in Williams void; we quash the district court decision and direct that the appeal of the county court order be transferred to the district court.
FIESELMAN
Fieselman was charged in county court with being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The county court dismissed the charge, and the state áppealed to the circuit court, which reversed and remanded. Fieselman petitioned for writ of certiorari before the district court, which held that the decision was reviewable. The case was certified to us as being in conflict with Baker, wherein the court held that a district court should not review on certiorari a circuit court opinion reversing an order granting a motion to dismiss.
This case presents the following issue: Is the decision of a circuit court reversing a county court’s order granting a motion to dismiss reviewable on certiorari before a district court? We conclude that it is.
No certiorari review may ordinarily be had of a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss because the party has available to it an eventual plenary appeal of'the final judgment. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). This must be distinguished, however, from the situation where a county court grants a motion to dismiss and a circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, reverses. The decision of a trial court denying dismissal affects only the immediate parties and they can seek eventual redress through plenary appeal of the final judgment. When a circuit court reverses a county court order of dismissal, on the other hand, the circuit court is acting in its appellate capacity and its decision is binding on all county courts within the circuit. The decision thus affects parties outside the original litigation.
We approve that portion of the decision in Fieselman that concerns certiorari review, and disapprove Baker. It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in result only.
. Circuit courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from county court decisions declaring statutes invalid. See § 26.012(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. McGRATH Community Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…) (Altenbernd, J., dissenting) (noting that county courts are now resolving almost all PIP claims). The circuit court appellate decision in this case is binding on all five county courts within the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. See Fieselman v. State, 566 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla.1990); State v. Lopez, 633 So. 2d 1150, 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). As a result, the. circuit court appellate decision will have great influence, thus exacerbating the effect of the legal error. For these reasons, we conclude that the circui…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Wallis, 659 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ition for certiorari review of that denial. I do not think that this court has jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of the Department’s motion to dismiss, either as a certiorari proceeding or as a non-final appeal. In Fieselman v. State, 566 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1990), the Court declared: No certiorari review may ordinarily be had of a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss because the party has available to it an eventual plenary appeal of the final judgment. 566 So. 2d at 770. The court re…
-
Gould v. State, 974 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…itself, provides probable cause for a defendant’s arrest [*447] and continued detention. Furthermore, the circuit court appellate decision in this case is binding on all three county courts within the Tenth Judicial Circuit. See Fieselman v. State, 566 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla.1990). Because the circuit court’s application of incorrect law established a legal principle binding on lower courts that is neither fact-dependent nor fact-specific, the circuit court’s decision results in a miscarriage of justice that w…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Fieselman v. State, 537 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- A.C.S. v. State, 518 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Mitchell v. State, 538 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Pelter v. State, 540 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)