STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. LOUIS JAMES WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE H. PAUL BAKER, AS ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
In this prohibition proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court issued a formal writ of prohibition against a trial court judge who refused to comply with the Court's prior mandate to discharge a petitioner on robbery charges. The Court exercised its supervisory power under Florida Statute § 59.34 to enter the judgment the trial court should have entered, ordering the petitioner's discharge.
The trial court must comply with the Supreme Court's mandate. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in prohibition proceedings when constitutional questions are involved upon which a direct appeal is allowed as a matter of right. The Supreme Court issued a formal writ of prohibition and exercised its supervisory power to discharge the petitioner from custody on the robbery charge.
[1] Prohibition is an appropriate remedy when a trial court refuses to discharge a defendant in accordance with a higher court's opinion.
[2] The Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction in prohibition proceedings when questions are involved upon which a direct appeal to the Court is allowed as a matter of right.
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“we have jurisdiction in prohibition proceedings when questions are involved upon which a direct appeal to this Court is allowed as a matter of right”
Establishes the Supreme Court's jurisdictional basis for prohibition proceedings, particularly when constitutional questions are raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis James Williams was charged with robbery by information filed November 19, 1969. The Florida Supreme Court had previously issued a rule absolute …
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
In this original proceeding in prohibition, we determined that a rule absolute in prohibition should issue, but the issuance of a formal writ was withheld in full confidence that the trial court would discharge the petitioner in accordance with the law as set forth in the opinion. The trial court refused to discharge the defendant and to dismiss the prosecution, purportedly basing its ruling on State of Florida ex rel. Soodhalter v. Baker (1971), Fla.App., 242 So.2d 814. The latter case merely involved the question of whether this Court could transfer a petition for writ of prohibition to the District Court of Appeal where this Court lacked jurisdiction. It was pointed out that we have jurisdiction .in prohibition proceedings when questions are involved upon which a direct appeal to this Court is allowed as a matter of right. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. A constitutional question was raised in the case sub judice at the trial level and we had jurisdiction.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for the issuance of a formal writ of prohibition. Ordinarily, the Court is reluctant to issue a formal writ where the respondent is a member of the judiciary. However, in view of the evident disagreement of the trial court with both the correctness and wisdom of the opinion of this Court in this case and the trial court’s refusal to carry out the mandate as expressed in our opinion, we feel it necessary to issue a formal writ of prohibition, and it is hereby ordered that same be issued.
The petitioner should not be the victim of an intellectual struggle between this Court and the trial court. In an effort to avoid any further misunderstanding or controversy, we have concluded to exercise our power under Fla.Stat. § 59.34, F.S.A., and enter the judgment which the lower court should have entered. Accordingly, it is further
Ordered and adjudged that petitioner, Louis James Williams, insofar as the charge of robbery alleged in the information filed November 19, 1969, is concerned, be discharged from custody.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. McCRARY, 260 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ion, and the rule nisi in prohibition was made absolute. See State ex rel. Williams v. Baker, Fla.1971, 247 So. 2d 316. Thereafter the Supreme Court entered an order discharging Williams from the crime. See State ex rel. Williams v. Baker, Fla.1971, 248 So. 2d 650. Pending the prohibition action, the respondent trial judge entered an order in which, after reciting he had appeared and argued in proper person at one hearing thereon in the Supreme Court and had filed a brief, and that a further hearing had been…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Richard Atwood v. The Honorable Paul Baker, 250 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1971)…Criminal Court of Record’s treatment of this cause at the hearing below, the Honorable Paul Baker presiding, we find that the interests of justice require an entry of the judgment which should have been entered. See State ex rel. Williams v. Baker, 248 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1971). Accordingly, the peremptory writ is issued, and it is' directed that petitioner Richard Atwood be discharged from the prosecution in question. It is so ordered. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. . We note…
-
Monroe Educ. Ass'n v. Clerk, Dist. Court OF Appeal, Third Dist., 299 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)…ate ex rel. Investment Corporation of South Florida v. Board of Business Regulation (Fla.1969), 227 So. 2d 674; West Flagler Associated, Ltd. v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Fla.1971), 251 So. 2d 856; State ex rel. Williams v. Baker (Fla.1971), 248 So. 2d 650 and State ex rel. Pettigrew v. Kirk (Fla.1970), 243 So. 2d 147. In the case last cited we expressly stated we exercised our authority therein “under the all writ section”. Compare also State ex rel. Turner v. Earle (Fla.1974) 295 So. 2d 609, 611, 61…
Authorities Cited
- Boozer v. Boozer, 242 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)