STANLEY COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Cole was charged with robbery in Broward County, transferred to Polk County for trial, convicted by jury, then transferred back to Broward County for sentencing and judgment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction remained in Polk County despite the post-conviction transfer, and transferred the appeal to the Second District because Polk County falls outside the Fourth District's jurisdiction.
Once a cause is transferred to and actually tried in a court, jurisdiction for adjudication and sentencing remains in that court. The post-verdict transfer to Broward County is treated as merely an administrative order for the trial judge's convenience, and the judgment and sentence are treated as those of the Polk County Court of Record. Consequently, the Fourth District lacked jurisdiction and must transfer the appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal.
[1] Once a cause is transferred to and tried in a different court, jurisdiction remains in that court for adjudication and sentencing.
[2] An order transferring a cause back to a previous court after trial may be treated as an administrative order for the convenience of the trial judge.
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“This procedure produces the anomaly of an adjudication of guilt and sentencing by a different court than that in which the defendant was convicted.”
Identifies the core jurisdictional problem created by the post-verdict transfer and sentencing in a different court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCole and Nathaniel Talbot were charged with robbery in the Broward County Court of Record. Cole moved for a change of venue, and the case was transfer…
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 Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER
Although none of the parties mentioned it in their briefs, a jurisdictional question appears in this case. We noted it at oral argument and the parties have furnished supplemental briefs dealing therewith.
An information was filed in the Court of Record for Broward County, Florida, charging the defendant Cole and one Nathaniel Talbot with robbery. A motion for a change of venue was made by the defendant and an order was entered thereon which transferred the cause to the Criminal Court of Record in Polk County, Florida, for trial. The defendant was there convicted by jury verdict. After the verdict was rendered, the trial court on stipulation of the parties signed an order which transferred the cause back to the Court of Record for Broward County, Florida. Thereafter, on 1 September 1972 the trial judge sitting in Broward County, Florida, entered judgment and sentence which has been filed in that court. The present appeal has been taken from, that judgment and sentence.
This procedure produces the anomaly of an adjudication of guilt and sentencing by a different court than that in which the defendant was convicted. It produces the added peculiarity that in the event the appeal from the judgment of the Court of Record of Broward County reveals the need for a new trial, this court would he in the position of having to return the case to the Court of Record for Polk County— a court not within our district.
We conclude that once the cause was transferred to and actually tried in the Criminal Court of Record for Polk County, jurisdiction remained in that court for the purpose of adjudication and sentencing. Compare Resnick v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 274 So.2d 589. For the purpose of convenience we hold that the order transferring the cause back to the Court of Record for Broward County shall be given effect only as an administrative order for the convenience of the trial judge and the adjudication and sentence shall be treated as an adjudication and sentence of the Court of Record of Polk County, Florida. It is therefore,
ORDERED that this appeal be transferred, pursuant to Rule 2.1a(5)(d), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., to the Second District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, and that the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Polk County, Florida, for filing therein any of the original record or proceedings, which the former may now have in his possession.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasilinda v. Lozano, 631 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1994)…when venue is transferred to another jurisdiction and the ease is concluded in the new jurisdiction, review of the final order or judgment is properly commenced in the appellate court which has jurisdiction over the transferee court. Cole v. State, 280 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Resnick v. State, 274 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). With respect to review of interlocutory orders, the cases are in disarray. In University Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Lightboum, 201 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967),…
-
Hernandez v. State, 64 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 2011)…v. State, — So. 3d -, 2009 WL 3617452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), in which the Third District Court of Appeal denied an appellant’s motion to transfer his appeal to another district court, but certified that its decision was in conflict with Cole v. State, 280 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), and Stanek-Cousins v. State, 896 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we approve Hernandez. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case…1 / 2
-
Hernandez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…unty, review of the judgment is properly before the Third District Court of Appeal. Accordingly, we deny Hernandez’s motion to transfer his appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Because we note that our holding conflicts with Cole v. State, 280 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), and Stanek-Cousins v. State, 896 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), [*8] we certify the conflict for resolution by the Florida Supreme Court. Motion denied; conflict certified.…
Authorities Cited
- Errol B. Resnick v. State, 274 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)