JOHN ROBERTSON, JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF ORLANDO, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MERRILL BRADFORD, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a circuit court's prohibition against a municipal court judge proceeding with a DUI case. The municipal court lacked the authority to grant the defendant's timely demand for a jury trial, which is a prerequisite for the municipal court to retain jurisdiction.
No, the municipal court judge cannot proceed with the case because the denial of a timely jury trial demand divests the municipal court of jurisdiction.
“The vista of this appeal extends only to a determination of whether the circuit court for Orange County erred in prohibiting the Municipal Court of the City of Orlando and the municipal judge thereof from exercising jurisdiction or proceeding further in this cause since the appellee, after being 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, had made a timely but denied demand for jury trial under F.S. 1967, Section 322.262(4), F.S.A.”
This quote outlines the central issue on appeal regarding the municipal court's jurisdiction after a denied jury trial demand.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee was charged in municipal court with driving under the influence. He made a timely demand for a jury trial, which was denied by the munici…
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
The vista of this appeal extends only to a determination of whether the circuit court for Orange County erred in prohibiting the Municipal Court of the City of Orlando and the municipal judge thereof from exercising jurisdiction or proceeding further in this cause since the appellee, after being 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, 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 provide a jury trial has not been raised for our determination and no expression of such is to be garnered here-from.
Affirmed.
OWEN, J., concurs.
REED, J., dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting):
I dissent on the basis of the views which I heretofore expressed in a dissenting opinion in the case of Davis v. Smith, supra.
REED, Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent on the basis of the views which I heretofore expressed in a dissenting opinion in the case of Davis v. Smith, supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
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.…
-
Cnty. OF Dade v. Bass, 237 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…motion for a jury trial had been denied. He appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the conviction on the following ground: “In the cases of Davis v. Smith, [Fla. App.1969] 227 So. 2d 342, and Robertson v. State [ex rel. Harty, Fla.App.1969], 227 So. 2d 346, the Courts held in similar cases the defendant was entitled to a jury trial, and this appears to be the law of this state at this time.” [*560] The circuit court was correct in its statement and cannot be faulted upon its decision to follow the law…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Smith, 227 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Robertson v. State of Fla. ex rel. Leon A. Harty & John William Sampson, 227 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)