C. G. PEADEN, PETITIONER,
v.
THE 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.
C. G. Peaden sought certiorari to review his conviction for possession of intoxicating liquor. The Florida Supreme Court held that certiorari is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging sufficiency of evidence based on procedural errors, and affirmed the conviction because the record contained sufficient proof of the offense date.
Certiorari cannot serve as an appellate proceeding to challenge evidentiary sufficiency or mere procedural errors. The writ is only appropriate to challenge judgments that are illegal or void, not merely erroneous. Here, the record contains sufficient proof because the clear inference is that 'Sunday afternoon' in evidence referred to the preceding Sunday afternoon.
“The writ of certiorari cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appellate proceeding in the nature of a writ of error with a bill of exceptions.”
Establishes that certiorari is not an appropriate vehicle for appellate review of evidentiary or procedural matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeaden was convicted in Pensacola's recorder's court of possessing intoxicating liquor. The circuit court of Escambia County affirmed the conviction. …
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
West, C.‘ J.
This case is here upon certiorari to the circuit court of Escambia County to review a judgment of that court affirming a judgment of the recorder’s court of the City of Pensacola against the petitioner in which he was convicted of the offense of having in his possession intoxicating liquor. The error urged in the circuit court and the contention made here is that the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the crime alleged. Specifically it is urged that according to the record the date of the alleged offense is not proved. The writ of certiorari cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appellate proceeding in the nature of a writ of error with a bill of exceptions. Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30, 76 South. Rep. 341. “Mere errors of procedure even resulting in an erroneous, as distinguished from an illegal or void judgment, may not warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.” Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 South. Rep. 376. The court issuing the writ.will neither affirm nor reverse the judgment nor try the ease upon its merits. Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla..523. If, upon an inspection of the transcript of the record, including a duly authenticated bill of exceptions, it appears that the judgment or other proceedings are not in accordance with the essential requirements of the law, the judgment of affirmance will be quashed, otherwise the writ of certiorari will be quashed. Coe-Mortimer Co. v. State, 81 Fla. 701, 88 South Rep. 475.
There is not in this record such an absence of proof as to render the proceeding and judgment void. The clear inference is that the “Sunday afternoon” in evidence as the date upon which the alleged offense was committed was the preceding Sunday afternoon.
The writ of certiorari is quashed.
"Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Donald Smith v. State, 187 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…rriage of justice appears. Errors of that nature can ordinarily be reviewed only upon writ.of error to the final judgment in the exercise of the purely appellate jurisdiction of this court. Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376; Peaden v. State, 90 Fla. 84, 105 So. 142; Ragland v. State, 55 Fla. 157, 46 So. 724; 17 C.J. 16.” In Morris v. State, 1933, 110 Fla. 95, 148 So. 182, the Supreme Court stated: “The Supreme Court on certiorari cannot quash a judgment merely because reversible error was commit…
-
Hiram M. Farnham v. Caldwell, 141 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1940)…135 So. 156), where there is ample, competent and illegal evidence to sustain the judgment. American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740. And the case will not be tried upon its merits by the Court issuing the writ. Peaden v. State, 90 Fla. 84, 105 So. 142. Upon a certiorari directed to the circuit court as an appellate court, the Supreme Court will not question the correctness of the judgment of the circuit court upon its merits. Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30, 76 So. 341; Harrison v. Frin…
Authorities Cited
- Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1921)
- Cary T. Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1917)
- Ex parte Wilson, 74 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1917)
- The Coe-Mortimer Co. v. State, 81 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1921)