THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD JOSEPH, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of a second-degree murder information against Joseph. The trial court dismissed the charges because the Justice of the Peace filed bind-over papers 4 days late (June 22 instead of by June 18). The appellate court held that the 7-day transmittal rule is neither jurisdictional nor a statute of limitations, and absent prejudice to the defendant, the delay does not warrant dismissal.
The 7-day transmittal period is neither jurisdictional nor a statute of limitations. The trial court erred in dismissing the information based solely on the procedural delay without finding that the defendant suffered prejudice or that a miscarriage of justice occurred.
[1] A trial court errs in dismissing an information solely because a magistrate failed to timely transmit bind-over papers, absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant.
[2] The time period for a magistrate to transmit bind-over papers to the clerk of the trial court is not jurisdictional.
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 hold that the period set by rule 1.122(m) CrPR, 33 F.S.A. for the transmittal of the bind-over papers is not jurisdictional nor is it a statute of limitation, therefore the trial court erred in the dismissal of the information filed on August 3, 1970.”
Establishes the core holding that the 7-day transmittal rule is procedural, not jurisdictional
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 11, 1970, a Justice of the Peace ordered Joseph bound over to Criminal Court on a manslaughter charge. The bind-over papers were filed with th…
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 Dismissal Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
The state appeals an order dismissing an information filed against the appellee. The dismissal followed upon the trial court’s own motion at the court’s discovery that the Justice of the Peace had been late in filing the bind-over papers with the Clerk of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida. The time schedule is as follows:
On June 11, 1970, the Justice of the Peace ordered the defendant bound over to the Criminal Court of Record on a charge of manslaughter.
The Justice of the Peace bind-over papers were filed with the Clerk of the Criminal Court of Record on June 22, 1970.
On August 3, 1970, the prosecution filed an information in the Criminal Court of Record charging the defendant with second degree murder.
On April 14, 1971, the trial court ex mero motu entered an order dismissing the information.
The trial court in his order stated:
“Subsection (m) of the Rule relates to the transmission of papers by the Magistrate. Paragraph 1 of the Rule reads as follows:
‘(1) When the Magistrate has discharged the defendant, or has held him to answer, he shall transmit within seven days thereafter to the Clerk of the Court having trial jurisdiction of the offense:’
(Emphasis supplied)
“Thereafter are listed the papers that are to be transmitted after the Magistrate has conducted the preliminary hearing. In the instant case it affirmatively appears from an examination of the file that the Justice of the Peace conducted a preliminary hearing on June 11, 1970. It also affirmatively appears that it was not until June 22, 1970 that the papers were transmitted to the Clerk of the Criminal Court as provided by the Rule. The Clerk of the Criminal Court docketed the papers as being received from the Magistrate on June 22, 1970, some four (4) days past the seven (7) day limit provided for in the rule.”
*277It affirmatively appears that the trial court has misapprehended the legal effect of the rule cited. The rule in full is as follows:
“Rule 1.122 Preliminary Hearing
sji * * % * *
(m) Transmission of Papers by Magistrate.
(1) When the magistrate has discharged the defendant, or has held him to answer, he shall transmit within 7 days thereafter to the clerk of the court having trial jurisdiction of the offense:
(a) The complaint and warrant;
(b) The written testimony of the witnesses if transcribed and filed;
(c) The recognizance or undertaking for the appearance of witnesses;
(d) A copy of the order discharging or holding the defendant;
(e) Every article, writing, money, or other exhibit received in evidence; provided, however, that such articles, writings, moneys, or other exhibits so used in evidence before said magistrate may be returned to the owner thereof upon written order of the judge of the court having jurisdiction to try the defendant.
(2) Any magistrate who refuses or fails to transmit the papers and articles so mentioned, may be ordered to do so by the court having trial jurisdiction of the offense charged and if he disobeys such orders may be held for contempt.”
In the case at bar, there is no showing or finding by the trial court that the defendant had been in any way prejudiced by the delay in transmitting the bind-over papers. What we have simply is a nondeliberate violation of a rule involving a procedural matter. The peace justice’s error did not result in a miscarriage of justice and, therefore, the information should not have been set aside. Section 59.041, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
We hold that the period set by rule 1.122(m) CrPR, 33 F.S.A. for the transmittal of the bind-over papers is not jurisdictional nor is it a statute of limitation, therefore the trial court erred in the dismissal of the information filed on August 3, 1970. Compare State v. Fattorusso, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 630.
Reversed and remanded with directions to the court to proceed under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the information and other pleadings which were filed in this cause prior to April 14, 1971.
In view of the nature of this case, the petition for rehearing, if filed, shall be filed within three days of the date of the filing of this judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shupack v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…mmary judgment be, and the same is hereby granted.” This order is merely authorization for a final judgment. It does not constitute a final judgment, nor is it an order from which an interlocutory appeal could properly lie. See Harris v. Mosteller, 253 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Arnold v. Brady, 178 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Lyden v. DePiera, 147 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Stone v. Buckley, 119 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Chastain v. Embry, 118 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Elliott v. Lazar,…
-
Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ismissed. Shupack v. Allstate Insurance Company, 356 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Florida Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Self-Insurers Fund v. Citizens National Bank of Orlando, 223 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Harris v. Mosteller, 253 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); and Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). For the sake of argument, a properly entered final summary judgment would have nevertheless been affirmed. While appellant did pre…
-
State v. Cook, 264 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1972)…District (State v. Cook, 254 So. 2d 560), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court (Schneider v. Gustafson Industries, Inc., 139 So. 2d 423), and a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District (State v. Joseph, 253 So. 2d 275), on the same point of law. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A. The statute under consideration, Fla.Stat. § 932.61, F.S.A., describes the method by which charges may be filed in the State court when a person charged with violation of a municipal ordin…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Headley v. Baron, 228 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)