STATE EX REL. GEORGE COUPER GIBBS, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
v.
THE CIRCUIT COURT, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DADE COUNTY
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.
The Florida Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition to prevent a lower court from discharging defendants after their conviction had already been affirmed on appeal. The court held that a lower court cannot interfere with a judgment rendered by an appellate court.
Yes, the Supreme Court should restrain the circuit court. The lower court cannot interfere with a judgment rendered by an appellate court, especially when the issue raised in the lower court was not raised before the appeal.
“The question of the sufficiency of the information not having been raised by motion to quash before going to trial came too late after judgment.”
Establishes that the defendants waived their right to challenge the information by not raising it before trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Hyde and C. K. Slaton were convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, and their conviction was affirmed on appeal. They later sou…
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 Appellate Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
-Frank Hyde and C. K. Slaton were informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. They were tried and convicted and on writ of error to this Court, their conviction was affirmed. When the mandate to execute the judgment went down, they applied to and secured from the circuit court a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the information was void in that it was not sworn to by the county solicitor.
At this state of the cause, application for prohibition was made to this Court. A rule nisi was issued and returns duly entered thereto by the circuit judge and the defendants. The returns in part admitted the allegations of the suggestion for prohibition.
The question presented may be stated as follows: Under the state of facts recited, -should this Court restrain the circuit court from making an order discharging the defendants or otherwise modifying the judgment of the criminal court of record as affirmed by this Court?
The question of the sufficiency of the information not having been raised by motion to quash before going to trial came too late after judgment. Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 So. 1022; Kirkland v. State, 86 Fla. 64, 97 So. 502 ; Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736; Young v. State, 97 Fla. 214, 121 So. 468.
*380The law is settled in this State that when a cause has been appealed and judgment rendered by the appellate court, interference therewith on the part of the lower court by any proceding other than such as is directed by the appellate court will be prohibited. So, after a binding final judgment on appeal, the lower court may be prohibited from allowing the same matter to be relitigated. State ex rel. Hamilton v. Mayo, 123 Fla. 491, 167 So. 34; State ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 So. 632.
The rule nisi is made permanent.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitman, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Justices Drown and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Champlin v. State, 122 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…assignments of error, he is deemed to have waived the defect. Sections 909.01 and 909.06, F.S.A.; Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 So. 1022; Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699; see also Kaminski v. State, Fla. 1954, 72 So. 2d 400. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Earl William Paluska, Jr. v. The Honorable Jos. S. White, 162 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…L Investors, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 671; State ex rel. Stewart v. Circuit Court, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 424; State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So. [*700] 2d 265, and State ex rel. Gibbs v. Circuit Court, 1939, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699. See also section XI, entitled, Prohibition to protect proceedings in or judgment of appellate court, pages 1299-1302, of the annotation, supra, entitled, Prohibition to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, 159 A.L.R. 1283, which cites…
-
King v. L & L Invs., Inc., 136 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…P. R. Co., 1897, 39 Fla. 243, 22 So. 697; State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 1898, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; Reynolds v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., 1900, 42 Fla. 387, 28 So. 861.” In State ex rel. Gibbs, v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699, 700, the Supreme Court said: “The law is settled in this State that when a cause has been appealed and judgment rendered by the Appellate Court, interference therewith on the part of the lower Court by any proceeding other than such a…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1927)
- Kirkland v. State, 86 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1923)
- Gadsden D. Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1899)
- State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1933)
- Young v. State, 97 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1929)
- Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1909)
- State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Mayo, 123 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1936)