JOHN ROBERTSON, JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF ORLANDO, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. LEON A. HARTY AND JOHN WILLIAM SAMPSON, APPELLEES
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.
A person charged with DUI in municipal court is entitled to a jury trial upon demand. The municipal judge lost jurisdiction when a jury trial was demanded.
Relator demanded a jury trial for a DUI charge in municipal court. The municipal judge conceded the court lacked authority to impanel a jury.…
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 Municipal Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This case, like Davis v. Smith, District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 227 So.2d 342, opinion filed this date, presents the question of whether F.S.1967, Section 322.-262(4), F.S.A., entitles a person, charged in municipal court with the offense of driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired, to a jury trial upon demand for such.
In the instant case, unlike the situation in Davis v. Smith, supra, the municipal judge was prohibited from exercising further jurisdiction because the relator had made timely demand for jury trial and the respondent municipal judge had apparently conceded that there was no authority under the municipal charter authorizing the Municipal Court of Orlando to impanel a jury and conduct a jury trial.
We affirm upon the authority of Davis v. Smith, supra. We expressly do not decide the question of whether the Municipal Court of Orlando has the means of providing a jury trial in this case as that question was not raised on this appeal.
Affirmed.
WALDEN and McCAIN, TJ-, concur
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. Bradford, 227 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…red, had made a timely but denied demand for jury trial under F.S. 1967, Section 322.262(4), F.S.A. We affirm on the authority of Davis v. Smith, District Court of Appeal, 227 So. 2d 342, and Robertson v. State of Florida, District Court of Appeal, 227 So. 2d 346, both opinions filed October 3, 1969. The homogeneous nature of these opinions is not disturbed by the municipal judge’s concession that there was no authority for impaneling of a jury. The issue of whether the municipal court has the means to prov…
-
Robertson v. Bradford, 233 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1970)…decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for further consideration in the light of this Court’s decision in Smith v. Davis, supra. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, C. J., dissents. . 227 So. 2d 346 (Fla.App.4th 1969). . See F.S. § 322.262(4) (1967), F.S.A. . Fla., 231 So. 2d 517 (Opinion filed February 4, 1970). . Fla., 233 So. 2d 633, opinion filed April 1, 1970.…
-
Robertson v. State of Fla. ex rel. Leon A. Harty & John William Sampson, 233 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1970)…decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for further consideration in the light of this Court’s decision in Smith v. Davis, supra. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, C. J., dissents. . 227 So. 2d 346 (Fla.App.4th 1969). . See F.S. § 322.262(4) (1967), F.S.A. . Fla., 231 So. 2d 517 (Opinion filed February 4, 1970). . Fla., 233 So. 2d 633, opinion filed April 1, 1970.…
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
- Davis v. Smith, 227 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)