STATE
v.
COOPER
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.
Ruth L. Cooper appealed her convictions for careless driving and driving under the influence, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and arguing that an amendment to the statute under which she was prosecuted repealed the original provision. The court affirmed, holding that statutory repeal by implication is disfavored and that the re-enactment of substantially identical provisions continues the prior statute's operation.
The court held that statutory repeal by implication is not favored and requires positive repugnancy between the former and new enactment. Even if the amendment could be deemed a repeal, it simultaneously re-enacted substantially identical provisions, which under Florida law continues the prior statute in uninterrupted operation. Therefore, convictions under the prior statute are valid despite the amendment.
“statutory repeal by implication is not favored and that there must be a positive repugnancy between the former and the new enactment”
Establishes the legal standard that amendments do not implicitly repeal prior statutes absent direct conflict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuth L. Cooper was convicted in Dade County metropolitan court of careless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor under …
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.
This cause came before the court on the appeal of Ruth L. Cooper from her convictions in the Dade County metropolitan court of careless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The appellant first questioned the sufficiency of the evidence. An examination of the record on appeal reveals ample evidence to support the convictions. í
The appellant further contended that because section 30-15 of the code had been amended without a saving clause she could not be prosecuted under section 30-15(a) thereof. The argument was based on the theory that the amendment subsequent to the offense repealed or negatived the prior section 30-15.
Appellant relies on Bazarte v. State (Fla. App. 2d), 114 So.2d 500, in support of this contention. This case does not hold that the amendment of an act eliminates the former act and therefore the offense but that where a statute is amended changing an offense *94from a misdemeanor to a felony the accused, whose offense occurred prior to the amendment, must be tried as a misdemeanant.
The law is well settled that statutory repeal by implication is not favored and that there must be a positive repugnancy between the former and the new enactment. De Coningh v. City of Daytona Beach (Fla. App. 1st 1958), 103 So.2d 233.
Even if the amendatory ordinance could be held to be a repeal of the prior ordinance, a holding for which this court can find no basis in the record, the ordinance was re-enacted at one and the same time. It is apodictic in the law that where a repealing act re-enacts substantially the provisions of the act repealed, the latter is construed not to be thereby destroyed or interrupted in its operation but is continued in uninterrupted operation and judgment may be rendered upon a conviction under it though the offense was committed and prosecution commenced before the repeal. Forbes v. Board of Health of Escambia County (Fla. 1891), 9 So. 446.
In the instant case the offense and punishment prescribed are precisely the same in section 30-15 (a) both before and after the amendment. In view of the foregoing, it is ordered and adjudged that the convictions are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DE Coningh v. City OF Daytona Beach, 103 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Bazarte v. State, 114 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)