ARCHIBALD LIVINGSTON
v.
STATE
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 clarified the proper routing of its mandate following reversal of a conviction. Although the trial court's first error occurred in Madison County before a change of venue, the mandate must be directed to Lafayette County where the judgment was rendered, with the trial court then having discretion to remand to Madison County for retrial on the issues raised by the pleas in abatement.
The mandate must be directed to the county where the judgment was rendered and the writ of error was issued (Lafayette County), even though the reversible error occurred in Madison County before the change of venue. However, upon remand, the receiving court may, upon motion, remand the cause back to the county of original jurisdiction (Madison) for trial of the issues raised by the pleas in abatement.
“The mandate of an appellate court remitting the cause to the lower court is the official mode of communicating its judgment to the inferior tribunal.”
Establishes the fundamental nature and purpose of appellate mandates in communicating reversals and directing further proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLivingston was indicted in Madison County for an offense committed there. A change of venue was granted, and his trial was held in Lafayette County, r…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
On February 3, 1933, this Court filed its opinion and entered its judgment reversing the conviction and sentence of plaintiff in error and awarding him a new trial. The transcript shows that pursuant to an order granting a change of venue, plaintiff in error’s trial was had in the Circuit Court of Lafayette County on an indictment returned in Madison County for an offense charged as having been committed in Madison County. But in this Court’s opinion filed February 3, 1933, this Court found that the first error complained of was committed by the trial court in Madison County and for that reason the Clerk of this Court in issuing this Court’s mandate on the judgment of reversal, directed the mandate to the Circuit Court of Madison County where the indictment was found instead of to the Circuit Court of Lafayette County where the trial was had, the verdict returned, the judgment of conviction entered and the court’s sentence imposed.
Acting on the Attorney General’s motion to recall the mandate from Madison County as having been erroneously directed and sent to that county, the mandate has been re-palled and the proposition is now before this Court to con*393sider the entry of an order directing where the mandate should go in view of the finding of this Court that the first error for which the judgment was reversed was committed in Madison County prior to the defendant’s application for a change of venue.
The mandate of an appellate court remitting the cause to the lower court is the official mode of communicating its judgment to the inferior tribunal. In a case in which the appellate court reverses a judgment and remands the cause to the lower court for further proceedings, the mandate must be issued and directed to the court whose judgment has been reversed, and where the judgment was rendered in a county other than the one in which the cause originally was instituted, by reason of a change of venue, the mandate should be issued and directed to the court of the county wherein the judgment was rendered and the writ of error was issued and after such mandate is lodged in that county, the lower court is left free to make any order or directions in further progress of the cause, not inconsistent with the decision of the appellate court, including the right to remand the cause to the county from which the venue was changed, in cases where such remand is moved, because the first error sustained by the decision of the appellate court was committed in the county of original jurisdiction prior to the granting of the change of venue. This is so because the mandate operates upon the judgment appealed from, and therefore should be lodged in the county where the record of such judgment exists.
In the present case the first error found to have been committed by the trial court was its error in disposing of certain of defendant’s pleas in abatement without a jury trial of the issues of fact raised thereby. This error was committed in Madison County. It occurred before any motion for change of venue was either made or granted; *394Upon remand of this case to the Circuit Court pursuant to this Court’s mandate, the cause will stand for trial on the issues of fact raised by the pleas in abatement interposed to the indictment on the ground of irregularities in the preparation and preservation of the jury lists out of which the Grand Jury was drawn. See Livingston v. State, 108 Fla. 193, 145 Sou. Rep. 761.
Therefore while the mandate in this case must go to the county wherein the judgment was rendered and the writ of error was issued, it would be appropriate for the Circuit Court of Lafayette County, upon motion therefor, to remand the cause to Madison County for trial of the issues raised by the pleas in abatement, unless such remand be waived by the parties, and a trial of the collateral issues had in Lafayette County by consent.
It is ordered that the mandate of this Court pursuant to the opinion herein filed on February 3, 1933, be reissued and sent to the Circuit Court of Lafayette County with directions to have such proceedings thereon as may be in accordance with law.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex Parte: Archibald Livingston, 116 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1934)…Through an error the mandate was sent to Madison County instead of to Lafayette County, so about ten months later this Court ordered the mandate to be reissued and sent to the Circuit Court of Lafayette County. See Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 South. Rep. 205. The last order was made December 29, 1933. Thereafter, at a special term of the court held in Lafayette County, the court remanded the case to Madison County on the petition of accused. The State Attorney demurred to the pleas in statement which…1 / 2
-
Colonel v. Reed, 379 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…twilight zone in jurisdiction nor vacuum in its application. It is either effective full of force or not at all.” The mandate of an appellate court is the official method of communicating its judgment to the inferior tribunal. Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 So. 205 (Fla.1933); Tierney v. Tierney, 290 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); 3 Fla.Jur.2d § 402, Appellate Review. As Justice Whitfield phrased it in his concurring opinion in the Clearwater case, supra: Where on appeal or writ of error, the Sup…
-
D. E. R. Co. v. Warriner, 156 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…cember 12, 1962, recorded December 13, 1962, in Minute Book 91, Page 117 in the office of the Clerk of the Civil Court of Record in Dade County, it is hereby ordered that a corrected mandate be reissued herein. See Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 So. 205; McGregor v. Hammock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1962, 139 So. 2d 406 ; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 389. It is so ordered.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forrest Norris v. State, 108 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1933)
- Archibald Livingston v. State, 108 Fla. 193 (Fla. 1933)