STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HUBERT E. POTTER, DEFENDANT
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 denied certification of a question regarding the state's boundaries around the Dry Tortugas because the trial court had already ruled on the issue and such questions cannot be certified under Rule 4.6; certification is not a substitute for traditional appeal.
The Supreme Court denied certification because Rule 4.6 does not permit certification of questions that have already been ruled on by the trial court below; certification is not a substitute for appeal, and Rule 4.6 must be strictly construed.
“Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, is not a substitute for appeal.”
Establishes that certification cannot be used as an alternative appellate procedure for questions already decided by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHubert E. Potter was charged with shrimping in a prohibited area in Monroe County waters in violation of Florida law. Potter moved to dismiss, arguing…
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 Venue Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
The Honorable Robert S. Appleton, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Monroe County, has certified a question to this Court as provided under Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.
The statement of facts supporting the certification is that an information was filed against defendant, Hubert E. Potter, for shrimping in a prohibited area of the salt waters of Monroe County in violation of § 370.151(3) (d), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; that defendant pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the information on the grounds that the alleged offense occurred at a point beyond the boundaries of the State of Florida and Monroe County. The cause proceeded to a jury trial. The State attempted to establish venue of the crime and requested the Court to determine the boundaries of the State. The jury was excused, argument heard and the Court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling as follows:
“ * * * [I]n accordance with the Florida Constitution of 1868 reference the boundaries of the State of Florida and the Florida Constitution of 1968 which further delineated the said boundaries in the area in question, the boundaries of the State of Florida were along a line ‘ * * * three geographic miles from the Atlantic coastline and three leagues distant from the Gulf of Mexico coastline, whichever is greater, to and through the Straits of Florida and westerly, including the Florida reefs, to a point due south of and three leagues from the southernmost point of the Marquesa Keys; thence westerly along a straight line to a point due south of the Dry Tortugas Islands; thence westerly, northerly and easterly along the arc of a curve three leagues distant from Loggerhead Key to a point north of Loggerhead Key; thence northeast (045 degrees True) along a straight line to a point three leagues from the coastline of Florida; * * * ’. This means that the area in question (see Florida Statute 370.151(3) (d)) is within the venue of the lower court since, by definition, that part of Florida south of Dade and Collier Counties is Monroe County.” (e. s.)
Defense counsel objected to the above ruling. Both sides requested the question be certified. The trial court then certified the following question for our determination:
“What is the boundary of the State of Florida around the Islands of Dry Tor-tugas, and the boundary from Dry Tor-tugas to the mainland of Florida?”
The question certified has already been ruled on by the trial court. This ruling is properly reviewable on appeal.
*293Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, is not a substitute for appeal.1 This Court has held that questions already ruled on below cannot be certified here.2 We have also held that Rule 4.6 must be strictly construed in order to avoid encroachment on the full and proper exercise of jurisdiction by the trial judges.3
We are therefore, compelled to deny the certificate.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyer v. City OF Orlando, 232 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1970)…TS, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur. ERVIN, C. J., concurs specially with opinion. . Boyer v. City of Orlando, 402 F. 2d 966 (5th Cir. 1968). . Id. at 967. . Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1963). . 222 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1969). . 224 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1969). . Waite v. Wilson, 54 So. 2d 152 (Fla.1951). Note that implicit in the express holding of Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla.1963), is the caveat that the proposition must not have been resolved prior to its appearanc…
-
Integrated Container Servs., Inc. v. Overstreet, 375 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…a federal constitutional issue involving a violation to the Interstate Commerce Clause. We decline to pass upon this issue since it was not raised by the pleadings in the court below. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1970); State v. Turner, 224 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1969); and Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1952). “THIS CAUSE came on before the Court for non-jury trial upon the Plaintiff’s amended complaint which challenges as void the tax assessments for 1975, 1976 and 1977 upon the Plaintiff’s…
-
Freeman Bateman v. State, 238 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1970)…, J., dissents and concurs with ERVIN, C. J. ROBERTS, J., dissents. . Fla.Const. art. V, § 4 (1885 as amended). The trial court’s certification to this Court of the boundary question before us now was denied on procedural grounds. State v. Potter, 224 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1969). . Fla.Stat. § 370.151(3) (d), F.S.A. reads as follows: “(d) There is also established a nursery area in which no shrimping shall be permitted at any time, except live bait production as provided in this chapter. The nursery area thus e…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Curtis S. Newcomb and wife v. Edward P. Roarty and wife, 93 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1957)
- Prigger v. Kingery, 144 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hunter v. Flowers, 38 So.2d 438 (Fla. 1949)