SIDNEY WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM WADE HAMPTON, AS MUNICIPAL JUDGE, AND JOE C. JENKINS, JR., AS MUNICIPAL JUDGE PRO TEM., JUDGES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN AND FOR THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA; THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
Appellant sought a writ of prohibition to prevent his trial for a municipal DUI ordinance violation without a jury trial, citing Florida Statute 322.262(4). The court affirmed the trial judge's denial of the petition, holding that the statute does not apply to municipal court proceedings.
No. The statute does not apply to proceedings in municipal courts. The statute is inapplicable to municipal court trials.
[1] A statute providing for jury trials in certain criminal proceedings does not apply to municipal court proceedings unless explicitly stated.
[2] An appellate court will not consider issues not presented to or ruled upon by the lower court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment denying a petition for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent Municipal Judge of the City of Gainesville, Florida, from conducting appellant's trial on a charge of violating a municipal ordinance proscribing driving while intoxicated unless a jury trial is afforded in accordance with Section 322.262(4), F.S.A., 1967.”
Statement of the case and the central issue presented on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSidney Walker was charged in municipal court in Gainesville with violating a municipal ordinance proscribing driving while intoxicated. Walker petitio…
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 Petition For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment denying a petition for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent Municipal Judge of the City of Gainesville, Florida, from conducting appellant’s trial on a charge of violating a municipal ordinance proscribing driving while intoxicated unless a jury trial is afforded in accordance with Section 322.262(4), F.S.A., 1967.
The Circuit Judge to whom the petition was addressed held the statute inapplicable to proceedings in municipal courts. We agree. See City of Gainesville v. Hilliard, 207 So.2d 520 (Fla.App.1968), cert. discharged Hilliard v. City of Gainesville, 213 So.2d 689 (Fla.1968), appeal dismissed 393 U.S. 321, 89 S.Ct. 556, 21 L.Ed.2d 517 (1969), rehearing denied 393 U.S. 1112, 89 S.Ct. 858, 21 L.Ed.2d 814, and Smith v. Davis, 231 So.2d 517 (Fla.1970).
The sole thrust of appellant’s contention rests on the opinion of the court *326in Davis v. Smith, 227 So.2d 342 (Fla.App.1969). That decision was reversed in Smith v. Davis, supra, which was decided subsequent to the filing of the briefs herein. Noting the need to rest his case on other grounds, appellant’s able counsel has filed a motion for leave to submit a supplemental brief by which he contends that the case at bar should be reversed because of certain other constitutional principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, and Waller v. State of Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435, decided April 6, 1970. A reading of the final judgment appealed does not indicate, that the trial court considered such additional constitutional questions nor does it appear that such questions were directly considered by the trial judge in the rendition of his judgment. The rule is well settled that an appellate court will not consider matters urged for reversal unless the lower court had been afforded a full and adequate opportunity to consider such contentions. Accordingly, the motion to file supplemental brief is denied.
The final judgment appealed is affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…rgument, and by way of a "Motion to Supplement the Record,” the Wilsons raised an objection to the trial court's award of 1984 real estate taxes. However, as this point was not raised below, we will not entertain it on appeal. See Walker v. Hampton, 235 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). . Within their argument for the pro rata allocation of the foreclosure proceeds, the Wilsons urged the court to pro rate the attorney’s fees and costs as well. Because of our holding in favor of Great American under Point II, h…
-
Sec. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bleemer, 327 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…the instruction was made by either party. It is well settled that in order to reverse a trial court it is ordinarily necessary for the trial court to have passed upon the issue which is raised in the appellate court. Walker v. Hampton, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 325. However, there is an exception to the requirement for an objection. That is where the record viewed as a whole demonstrates that the error complained of may be considered a fundamental error. Frankowitz v. Beck, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 918. The ha…
-
Cont'l Mortg. Invs. v. Vill. BY THE SEA, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…first time, plaintiff suggests that the interrogatories were burdensome, oppressive and such as to constitute harassment. This posture is rejected for two reasons. First, the matter was not raised in the trial court. Walker v. Hampton, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 325. Second, if a basis for such claim should surface, application may be made for an order of protection. Rule 1.340(b), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. The trial court may then, depending on the circumstances, tailor the procedure or limit or apply special conditio…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968)
- Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1970)
- Hilliard v. City OF Gainesville, 213 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1968)
- Smith v. Davis, 231 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1970)
- Davis v. Smith, 227 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 1112 (U.S. 1969)
- Hilliard v. City of Gainesville, 393 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1969)
- Anderson v. State, 207 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- City OF Gainesville v. Hilliard, 207 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)