NORMAN R. SNYDER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner Snyder challenges his conviction for passing worthless checks under Florida law, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. The District Court of Appeal affirms the constitutionality of the statute and denies his petition for certiorari.
The court has jurisdiction to review the circuit court's final appellate judgment through certiorari. The statute prohibiting worthless checks is constitutional and does not violate any constitutional prohibition on legislative acts of this nature. The petition for certiorari is denied.
“A violation of Fla.Stat., Sec. 832.05, F.S.A., is designated as a misdemeanor in the statute itself, so the Circuit Court for Manatee County had appellate jurisdiction of this case.”
Establishes the court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal as a misdemeanor case within the circuit court's appellate authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSnyder was tried in Manatee County court on an information charging him with passing worthless checks in violation of Fla.Stat. § 832.05. A jury found…
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner has filed this petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County.
Petitioner was tried in the county court in Manatee County on an information-charging him with the crime of passing worthless checks under Fla.Stat., Sec. 832.05, F.S.A. The jury found petitioner guilty and he was sentenced to a term of 90' days in the county jail.
The first question for our determination is whether this court has jurisdiction. The petitioner was tried in the county court for a violation, of Fla.Stat., Sec. 832.05, F.S.A. Under the Florida Constitution, .Art. V, Sec. 6, F.S.A., a circuit court has appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising in the county court, or before county judges’ courts, of all misdemeanors tried in criminal courts of record. A violation of Fla.Stat., Sec. 832.05, F.S.A., is designated as a misdemeanor in the statute itself, so the Circuit Court for Manatee County had appellate jurisdiction of this case. The circuit court affirmed petitioner’s conviction and he filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this court. Judgments rendered by a circuit court in the exercise of its final appellate jurisdiction may be reviewed by district courts of appeal through the procedure of certiorari. Fla.Const. Art. V, Sec. 5, Sub-sec. (3); Frazee v. Frazee, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 484; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1966, 183 So.2d 193; and Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 208. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the writ of certiorari should be granted.
Throughout the proceedings in the lower courts petitioner has contended that the statute under which he was convicted (Fla.Stat., Sec. 832.0J5, F.S.A.) is unconstitutional. In Ennis v. State, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 20, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 868, 78 S.Ct. 117, 2 L.Ed.2d 74, this statute was impliedly *219held to be constitutional by the Florida Supreme Court. The opinion contains an excellent discussion of statutes of other states which are substantially the same as Fla. Stat., Sec. 832.05, F.S.A., and which have been held to be constitutional. See Shargaa v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 42. The purpose of these statutes and the Florida statute is to penalize persons for putting into circulation certain kinds of worthless commercial paper. There seems to be no constitutional prohibition against a legislative act ■of this nature.
We have considered each of petitioner’s points on appeal and have found them without merit. Therefore, we hold that Fla. Stat., Sec. 832.05, F.S.A., is constitutional. Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied.
ALLEN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dirk, 305 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1974)…ed by appellant for our determination is the constitutionality vel non of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes. We find no reason to recede from our former decisions and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Snyder v. State, 196 So. 2d 217 (Fla.App.1967), upholding the validity of this statute against constitutional attacks as those now presented by appellant. Shargaa v. State, 84 So. 2d 42 (Fla.1955); Ennis v. State, 95 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1957), cert. [*188] denied, 355 U.S. 868, 78 S.Ct…
-
Zediker v. State, 218 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…case sub judice presents such an instance, and therefore we feel that the supervisory jurisdiction of this court may be invoked in order to examine whether correct principles of law were applied to the admitted facts. Snyder v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 217; State v. Staley, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 147. At once we are confronted with the virtual absence of reported cases dealing with § 828.21, supra, save one, which is State v. Barone, Fla.1960, 124 So. 2d 490. In Barone, the basic issue was whether t…
-
United States v. Frazier, 444 F.2d 235 (5th Cir. 1971)…necessary element of the statutory offense, 832.05(2) would be unconstitutional as providing for imprisonment for debt without fraud contrary to Section 16 of the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution.7 Cf. Snyder v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 217. Although Florida’s courts have never had occasion to define the “intent to defraud” required in offenses prosecuted under this precise statute, we think we are on safe ground in adopting for our purposes here a definition of “intent to defraud” fo…
Authorities Cited
- Dresner v. City OF Tallahassee, 164 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1964)
- Bertram C. Ellison v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 183 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1966)
- Shargaa v. State, 84 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1955)
- Ennis v. State, 95 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1957)
- Weinstein v. United States, 355 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1957)
- Epstein v. United States, 355 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1957)
- Frazee v. Frazee, 185 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Snyder v. State, 180 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)