JIMMIE ANDERSON
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.
Jimmie Anderson was convicted of forgery by Circuit Judge W.T. Harrison in Manatee County, Florida. Anderson challenged the validity of sentencing by a different judge (George W. Whitehurst) who had been transferred to the circuit by gubernatorial order. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the identity of the judge is immaterial so long as the judge possesses lawful authority.
The court held that it is immaterial which judge imposes the sentence, provided that judge possesses lawful authority to do so. The law is satisfied if the individual officiating as judge is clothed with lawful authority, regardless of the judge's identity or home circuit.
“The law is not concerned with the identity of the individual who happens to officiate as Judge. It is satisfied if that individual assuming to officiate be clothed with lawful authority in that regard.”
Establishes the core holding that judicial authority, not identity, is what matters for valid judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was tried and convicted of forgery on November 9, 1933, before Circuit Judge W.T. Harrison in Manatee County. He was released in his attorney…
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.
In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted in the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida, of *478the crime of forgery. The trial occurred on November 9th, 1933. After his conviction he was allowed to go in the custody of his attorney until November 13th when he was' to return to the court and there receive such orders and judgment as the court might make. He was again allowed to leave the court to return on the 16th day of November, 1933.
On the 16th day of November he returned to the county seat and to the court house and at that time the Honorable George W. Whitehurst had been assigned by Order of the Governor in the following language to officiate as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County:
“Whereas, it has been officially made known to me that justice demands the transfer of a Circuit Judge to Manatee County in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida:
Now, Therefore, I, David Sholtz, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Florida, do hereby designate, assign and appoint Honorable Geo. W. Whitehurst, Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida, to proceed to Bradenton, in the County of Manatee, State of Florida, and thereupon on Thursday, the 16th day of November, A. D. 1933, and as long as is necessary thereafter, proceed to conduct the trial of all causes as' may properly come before him in said Court; and he, the said Geo. W. Whitehurst, under and by virtue of the authority hereof, is hereby vested with all and singular the powers and prerogatives conferred by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida upon circuit judges presiding by virtue of an Order of the Governor of said State.
'“In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand *479and caused the Great Seal of the State of Florida to be affixed at Tallahassee, the Capital, this 13th day of' November, A. D. 1933.
(Great Seal of the David Sholtz,
State of Florida) Governor.
By the Governor, Attest:
R. A. Gray,
Secretary of State.”
The sole question presented for our consideration is based upon the contention that whereas the defendant was tried and convicted before the Honorable W. T. Harrison, Circuit Judge, officiating as the resident Circuit Judge in and for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of' Florida, that the judgment and sentence of the court could not properly be imposed at a later date in the Term by the Judge of another Circuit who had been transferred to the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit under the Order aforesaid.
• There is no merit in the contention. The law is not concerned with the identity of the individual who happens to officiate as Judge. It is satisfied if that individual assuming to officiate be clothed with lawful authority in that regard. The point presented here was definitely settled in this State in the case of Ex Parte Williams, 26 Fla. 310, 8 Sou. 425. See also Liebovit v. Garfunkel, 68 Fla. 463, 67 Sou. 98. We might cite numerous cases from other jurisdictions to support our holding but deem it needless to do so.
The judgment should be affirmed.
It is' so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
(concurring).’—The power here exercised was in my opinion vested in the assigned Circuit Judge by Section 4841, Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927.
[*480] Brown, J.,
(concurring).’—The power here exercised was in my opinion vested in the assigned Circuit Judge by Section 4841, Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644 (Fla. 1939)…nt, the loll owing authorities involve some of the principles herein above set forth and applied: Poole v. State, supra; Vann v. State, supra; Skipper v. State, 114 Fla. 312, 153 So. 853; Walker v. State, 93 Fla. 1069, 113 So. 96; Anderson v. State, 115 Fla. 477, 155 So. 726; Pelaez v. State, supra; Stone v. State, 71 Fla. 514, 71 So. 634; Nance v. Stare, 41 Okl. Cr. 379, 273 Pac. 369; Byxbee v. State, 41 Okl. Cr. 272, Pac. 493; Lasley v. District of Columbia, 14 App. D. C. 407; Williams v. People, 26 Colo.…
-
Caplinger v. State, 271 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…rgument must fail. The final question raised on appeal concerns the validity of the sentence imposed by the substituted judge. It is permissible to allow a judge who did not preside in the trial to pass sentence upon the accused. Anderson v. State, 115 Fla. 477, 155 So. 726 (1934); Ex Parte Williams, 26 Fla. 310, 8 So. 425 (1890); United States v. Bakewell, 430 F. 2d 721 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 964, 91 S.Ct. 366, 27 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1970). However, a prerequisite exists which requires the subst…
-
Owens v. Hunter, 169 F.2d 971 (3d Cir. 1948)…ion, a judgment is not void merely because the trial was before one of the judges and the sentence was imposed by the other. Lanphere v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N.W. 128; York v. State, 91 Ark. 582, 121 S.W. 1070, 18 Ann.Cas. 344; Anderson v. State, 115 Fla. 477, 155 So. 726; State v. Dunn, Ohio App., 42 N.E. 2d 723. The case of Freeman v. United States, 2 Cir., 227 F. 732, is decisively different. There, the trial covered a period of four months and evidence was voluminous. More than one hundred witnesses…
Authorities Cited
- Ex-Parte Ephraim Williams, 26 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1890)
- Leibovit v. Garfunkel, 68 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1914)