WILLIAM L. HINES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
R. H. NOEL, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
In this writ of error case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of habeas corpus relief to William Hines, who was re-arrested 78 days after posting a supersedeas bond pending appeal of his municipal court conviction. The court held that municipal court convictions must be reviewed by writ of error (not appeal), which must be filed within 30 days, and that Hines forfeited his appellate rights by failing to timely pursue them.
Municipal court convictions must be reviewed by writ of error (not appeal), which must be filed within 30 days. A supersedeas bond, once posted with the appellate court, cannot be questioned by the trial court. Hines forfeited his appellate rights by failing to timely pursue them.
“in the litigation of a cause the right of appellate review is not a natural, unqualified or absolute right but that it is a right created by law and being so it must be acquired in the manner directed”
Establishes that appellate review rights are statutory creations that must be pursued according to the law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHines was convicted in St. Petersburg Municipal Court and sentenced to a $100 fine and 90 days in jail. He posted a $500 supersedeas bond with the Cir…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was tried in the Municipal Court of the City of St. Petersburg; was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars and to confinement in the city jail for ninety days. He gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Circuit Court and asked that a supersedeas bond be fixed. An order was' made by the municipal court fixing his bond at Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars which was immediately posted with the Circuit Court and the defendant discharged. Seventy-eight days later he was re-arrested and taken into custody by the respondent. On petition to the Circuit Court writ of habeas corpus was' granted which was quashed on hearing and the *458petitioner remanded to the custody of respondent. To^ the latter judgment of the Circuit Court this writ of error was taken.
The first question presented for our consideration is whether a judgment and conviction of a municipal court must be reviewed by appeal or writ of error.
This Court has held that in the litigation of a cause the right of appellate review is not a natural, unqualified or absolute right but that it is' a right created by law and being so it must be acquired in the manner directed. Reed v. State 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630. Chapter 4024, Acts of 1891, originally provided that anyone convicted in a municipal or recorder’s court might have his cause reviewed by appeal to the Circuit Court. State v. Wills, 49 Fla. 380, 38 So. 289. The law continued in this state till 1906, when the General Statutes was adopted and went into effect. In this revision Chapter 4021, Acts of 1891 was carried as Section 4052, but the revisors' struck out the right of review by appeal and inserted in lieu thereof the right of review by writ of error. This revision was carried in the Compiled Laws of 1914, Section 4052, the Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 6156 and in the Compiled General Laws of 1927, Section 8470. In this situation a writ of error would now seem to be the only means' of reviewing a judgment of a municipal or recorder’s court.
The second question presented for our consideration is whether or not the sufficiency of the supersedeas can be questioned by the court from which.appeal was taken after the required bond has been given and posted with the appellate court.
The record discloses that no proceedings were had in the cause except the motion and order fixing the superse-deas bond and the approval of said bond both of which took place June 30th, 1932. This was not sufficient to lodge *459jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. A bill of exceptions was filed July 21st, 1932. The petition for habeas corpus shows that relator was re-arrested seventy-eight days after he filed his supersedeas bond, the re-arrest being for failure to perfect'his appellate proceedings and to effect the judgment of the municipal court. Even if he had had a right of review by appeal his right was forfeited by his failure to diligently pursue that right as the law directs. Since we hold that his right of review was by writ of error which had to be sited out within thirty days' and not having been done no jurisdiction was vested in the Circuit Court. State v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 302, 10 So. 746.
For.the reasons announced in this opinion the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. The Town OF Oviedo, 92 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1957)…We have been referred to no constitutional inhibition applicable to the matter before us which would preclude the Legislature from adopting the statute under consideration. See also, De Bowes v. De Bowes, 149 Fla. 545, 7 So. 2d 4; and Hines v. Noel, 110 Fla. 457, 149 So. 17. The general rule which appears to have been accepted throughout the United States is to the effect that a statute requiring an appeal bond is ordinarily held to be a valid exercise of legislative power. Such statutes do not violate con…
Authorities Cited
- Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)
- State v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1892)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. S. v. Duke, 49 Fla. 380 (Fla. 1905)