THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TEOFILO BABUN AND SANTIAGO BABUN, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of a criminal information charging defendants with unlawful possession of explosives under § 552.101, Fla.Stat. The trial court had dismissed based on a requirement to exhaust administrative procedures first. The appellate court reverses, holding that criminal prosecution may proceed without prior administrative exhaustion.
Criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of explosives may proceed without exhausting administrative remedies. The administrative procedures in § 552.151 are designed for revoking licenses, imposing civil penalties, and providing equitable relief to protect the public, not as prerequisites to criminal prosecution. Requiring administrative exhaustion would be an unwarranted and unreasonable construction of the statute.
[1] A criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of explosives may proceed without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, as legislative intent does not require execu…
[2] Statutes must be construed to give a reasonable or normal interpretation to legislative intent, avoiding absurd and unreasonable results.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We fail to perceive the intent of the Legislature to be that before a criminal prosecution could be instituted against one alleged to be unlawfully in possession of highly dangerous explosives, a member of the executive department, to wit: the State Fire Marshal, would first have to conclude administrative hearings. This would be an unwarranted and unreasonable conclusion as to the meaning of the statute.”
Establishes the court's core holding that criminal prosecution need not await administrative proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State filed an information charging Teofilo Babun and Santiago Babun with violating § 552.101, Fla.Stat., which makes it unlawful to possess explo…
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 Violation Of Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals an order dismissing an information charging the appellees with a violation of § 552.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. It is apparent that the trial court concluded that before the State could prosecute the
*172appellees for an alleged violation of the statute [making it unlawful to possess explosives in certain situations] it would be necessary for the administrative procedures, provided for in §§ 552.151, 552.161, 552.171 of Chapter 552, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., be exhausted.
We fail to perceive the intent of the Legislature to be that before a criminal prosecution could be instituted against one alleged to be unlawfully in possession of highly dangerous explosives, a member of the executive department, to wit: the State Fire Marshal, would first have to conclude administrative hearings. This would be an unwarranted and unreasonable conclusion as to the meaning of the statute. In construing statutes, the courts are required to give a reasonable or normal construction to legislative intent [Hanson v. State, Fla. 1952, 56 So.2d 129; George v. State, Fla. App.1967, 203 So.2d 173] and are not to construe a statute to reach an absurd and unreasonable result. Johnson v. State, Fla. 1956, 91 So.2d 185; Sharon v. State, Fla. App.1963, 156 So.2d 677; State v. Schell, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 757. To do as the appellees urge in this case would be to follow the latter course. We think the alternatives permitted by the administrative procedures of § 552.151 of Chapter 552, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., are for the purposes of revoking a duly issued license or of providing a civil penalty for one possessing or not possessing a license who violates the provisions of the Chapter or the rules and regulations of the State Fire Marshal, and further provides certain equitable relief to protect the public. The State has cited United States v. Borden Company, 308 U.S. 188, 84 L.Ed. 181, 60 S.Ct. 182; Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc. v. United States, 362 U.S. 458, 4 L.Ed.2d 880, 80 S.Ct. 847. We have examined these decisions and find them persuasive. These, together with the reasoning set forth above, require us to reverse the trial judge’s order here under review, with directions to reinstate the cause in the trial court on the information as filed. The appel-lees’ contention that it would be a denial of due process and equal protection under the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida [to prosecute them without exhausting the administrative remedies] has been examined and found to be without merit.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Alonso, 345 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…atute. This conclusion is further supported by a well-settled canon of statutory construction that the courts should not construe a statute to reach an absurd and unreasonable result. Johnson v. State, 91 So. 2d 185, 191 (Fla.1956); State v. Babun, 233 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). To accept the state’s contention that the statute covers any unprivileged penetration .of the vaginal or anal cavities with any object, would mean that good-natured horseplay in which a person penetrates the anal cavity of anothe…
-
Martin v. State, 367 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ss of whether such construction varies from the statute’s literal meaning.” It is fundamental that a statute should not be construed to bring about an unreasonable or absurd result. Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla.3d DCA 1963); State v. Ba-bun, 233 So. 2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). Adoption of appellant’s position would lead to an absurd result here in that it would exclude pistols, shotguns, rifles, and any other commonly considered firearms from the statutory offenses involving firearms. We cannot presume…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1939)
- Md. & Va. Milk Producers Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 362 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1960)
- Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Hanson v. State, 56 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1952)
- George v. State, 203 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Johnson v. State, 91 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1956)
- State v. Schell, 222 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)