HUGH BROWN, JIMMY LEE SMITH, HENRY EDWARD HEATH, MARGARET PAPACHRISTOU, BETTY JEAN CALLOWAY, EUGENE E. MELTON, LEONARD JOHNSON AND THOMAS CAMPBELL, PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, RESPONDENT
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.
Eight petitioners challenged their vagrancy convictions under a Jacksonville ordinance. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the constitutionality of the vagrancy ordinance, rejecting petitioners' argument that a federal district court decision had overruled Florida Supreme Court precedent, and dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari as an improper attempt to secure a second appeal.
The court held that the vagrancy ordinance is constitutional, consistent with Florida Supreme Court precedent in Johnson v. State; that a federal district court decision, while persuasive, does not bind state courts; and that certiorari cannot be used to secure a second appeal from a circuit court exercising final appellate jurisdiction. Brown's right-to-resist-arrest claim was resolved by the ordinance's validity.
[1] A federal district court decision is persuasive but not binding on state courts.
[2] Decisions of the Florida Supreme Court are binding on Florida appellate courts.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A decision of a Federal District Court, while persuasive if well reasoned, is not by any means binding on the courts of a state. The Supreme Court of Florida is the apex of the judicial system of the State of Florida, and its decisions are binding upon this court.”
Establishes the court's hierarchical authority structure and rejection of federal precedent over state supreme court precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEight petitioners were convicted in Jacksonville Municipal Court for violating the city's vagrancy ordinance, which defined vagrants broadly to includ…
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 Final Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of certiorari, eight petitioners seek review of an order of the Circuit Judge affirming their convictions in the Jacksonville Municipal Court for violation of the vagrancy ordinance, to wit:
Sec. 26-57. Vagrants.
“Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pick-pockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, com*142mon railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children, shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for class D offenses.” (Code 1942, ch. 33, § 42; Code 1953, § 27-48).
The several appeals were consolidated in the Circuit Court where the constitutionality of the ordinance was the only issue for the eight petitioners, except that Petitioner Brown also raised the issue as to whether he had a right to resist arrest. The Circuit Judge found the • ordinance constitutional; relying upon Johnson v. State, 202 So.2d 852 (Fla.1967), and affirmed the convictions.
Petitioners’ contention is based primarily upon Lazarus v. Faircloth, 301 F. Supp. 266 (S.D.Fla.1969). They contend that this federal decision has in effect overruled the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. State, supra, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 856.02, Florida Statutes, since the subject ordinance is in all material respects identical in verbiage to the statute. A decision of a Federal District Court, while persuasive if well reasoned, is not by any means binding on the courts of a state. The Supreme Court of Florida is the apex of the judicial system of the State of Florida, and its decisions are binding upon this court.
As to Brown’s contention that no criminal offense is committed in resisting an unlawful and unconstitutional arrest, our conclusion as to the validity of the ordinance disposes of that contention.
Further, as ably argued by the City, final appellate jurisdiction of all cases arising in municipal courts is vested in the Circuit Court pursuant to provisions of Article V, Section 6(3), Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A. This Court in State v. Smith, 118 So.2d 792, 795 (Fla.App. 1st 1960), held:
“As to those cases where the Constitution affords final appellate jurisdiction in the circuit courts, certiorari may not be used in this court for the purpose of securing a second appeal, nor to produce the merits for review on appeal. The writ may not be used to review and affirm or reverse the judgment of a circuit court made in the exercise of its final appellate jurisdiction, but requires that the judgment be either quashed, or the writ of certiorari dismissed.”
Petitioners are obviously attempting to secure a second appeal by means of common law writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Circuit Court which exercised its final appellate jurisdiction. The writ will issue only where the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded according to the essential requirements of the law. The Circuit Court sitting as an appellate court did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not depart from the essential requirements of the law, but, on the contrary, properly followed the decision of the highest appellate court of this State, Johnson v. State, supra.
The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dwyer, 332 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1976)…d this Court’s holding that the statute is constitutional is the present prevailing law of Florida. Even though lower federal court rulings may be in some instances persuasive, such rulings are not binding on state courts. In Brown v. Jacksonville, 236 So. 2d 141 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1970), the constitutionality of the vagrancy ordinance was at issue, and the Circuit Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction over a municipal court ruling stated: “A decision of a Federal District Court, while persuasive if well…
-
Kidwell v. State, 696 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…yer, 332 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1976) (the only federal decisions binding upon the Florida state courts are those of the United States Supreme Court); Board of County Comm’rs v. Dexterhouse, 348 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977) (same); Brown v. Jacksonville, 236 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (“A decision of a Federal District Court, while persuasive if well reasoned, is not by any means binding on the courts of a state. The Supreme Court of Florida is the apex of the judicial system of the State of Florida, and its d…
-
Jaramillo v. City OF Homestead, 322 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1975)
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
- State v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Johnson v. State, 202 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1967)