EDDIE PAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Eddie Page appealed his perjury conviction to the Florida Supreme Court, claiming that the prosecution violated the double jeopardy clause by charging him with perjury based on testimony given during his own criminal trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the application of facts to a well-established constitutional provision does not qualify for direct appeal.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Page presented only a colorable assertion with no substantial basis under the constitutional provision authorizing direct appeals. The application of facts to a recognized, clear-cut constitutional provision does not constitute the type of constitutional decision that justifies direct Supreme Court review; jurisdiction lies with the District Court of Appeal.
“the application of the facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution does not amount to a decision upon which this Court could entertain a direct appeal”
Establishes the jurisdictional standard for direct appeal to the Supreme Court: mere application of facts to settled law does not qualify
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePage was convicted of perjury in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County. The perjury charge alleged that Page committed perjury in a former…
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 Direct Appeal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of perjury in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County. The appellant seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this.Court under the provision of Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing a direct appeal where the trial court construes a controlling provision of the Federal or State Constitution. Appellant asserts that the information charged him with the commission of perjury in a former trial in which he was the defendant and that therefore the second prosecution for perjury would constitute double jeopardy. Therefore he says that the trial court in denying his motion to quash did thereby pass upon a controlling provision of the Federal and State Constitutions to his grevous injury.
So far as our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal is concerned, appellant has presented merely a colorable assertion presenting no substantial basis upon which an appeal will lie under the above-cited constitutional provision.1 Jurisdiction to decide this question is clearly vested in the District Court of Appeal. Moreover, this case falls squarely within the principle announced by this Court that the application of the facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution does not amount to a decision upon which this Court could entertain a direct appeal.2 For us to entertain jurisdiction under this provision of the Constitution “the trial judge must undertake to explain, define or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision.” 3
It is, therefore, ordered that the notice of appeal and all other papers filed herein shall, at the expiration of five days from the filing of this order, be transferred to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.4
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alberta Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 OF the Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 141 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1962)…itution. The trial court undertook to eliminate these doubts by squarely holding that the contract clause was valid. The Chancellor did not merely apply the facts “to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution,” as in Page v. State, Fla., 113 So. 2d 557, because the right to work clause is not “clear-cut” when considered in connection with the facts presented in the instant case. On the contrary, the trial court was confronted with, and decided, a legitimate constitutional question of first impress…
-
GAY v. The City OF Orlando, 202 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…t. The Supreme Court has declared that, for direct appeal to lie, the trial judge must undertake to explain, define or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision. Page v. State, Fla. 1959, 113 So. 2d 557. This test has not been met here. The court in Page noted that application of facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of a constitution does not amount to such an explanation or definition as will trigger the direct appeal provision. To…
Authorities Cited
- Armstrong v. City OF Tampa, 106 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1958)
- Evans v. Carroll, 104 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1958)