GEORGE V. WARREN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
NICHOLAS J. CAPUANO, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision that a defendant discharged from criminal prosecution is entitled to recover costs and expenses from the county under Section 19, Article I of the 1968 Florida Constitution, which prohibits compelling a person charged with crime to pay costs before conviction becomes final.
A defendant discharged from criminal prosecution is entitled to recover reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the case from the county. This right derives from Section 19, Article I of the 1968 Florida Constitution, which provides that no person charged with crime shall be compelled to pay costs before judgment of conviction becomes final.
[1] A defendant discharged from criminal prosecution is entitled to recover costs expended in the defense of the case.
[2] The Florida Constitution mandates that a defendant cannot be compelled to pay costs before a judgment of conviction becomes final.
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“No person charged with crime shall be compelled to pay costs before a judgment of conviction has become final.”
Section 19, Article I of the 1968 Florida Constitution, the controlling constitutional provision at issue in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNicholas J. Capuano, a solvent defendant, was discharged from criminal prosecution. After his discharge, he sought recovery of $2,124.64 in expenses f…
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 Construction Of Constitutional Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
We consider in this case an appeal of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, from the decision of the District Court of. Appeal, Fourth District, initially construing a controlling new provision of the State Constitution (1968 revision) with reference to the allowance of costs and expenses of a defendant (Nicholas J. Capuano) who was discharged from prosecution in a criminal case. See Warren v. Capuano, DCA 4th, 269 So.2d 380.
The facts are set forth fully in the District Court Opinion and it is unnecessary to restate them here except where pertinent to our decision.
After his discharge from prosecution, Capuano (Appellee here), a solvent defendant, sought recovery of certain amounts totalling $2,124.64 from the County Commission which he claimed he had expended for witness fees, mileage, hotel bills, bail bond premiums and filing fees. Following denial thereof by the County Commission, Capuano sued the Commissioners in the Circuit Court and by summary judgment recovered all he claimed, save bail bond premium expense of $150 and hotel expense of Capuano in the sum of $85.-82, which he claimed he incurred while in West Palm Beach away from his home in Miami in order to appear in court in connection with the criminal charges lodged against him. In passing, we note that we do not undertake to pass upon the validity *874of these two disallowances since they are not cross-appealed here. However, reference for comparison purposes is made to Lillibridge v. City of Miami, Fla., 276 So.2d 40, and Wood v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1st, 248 So.2d 176.
As will appear from its opinion, the District Court in affirming the judgment of the trial court discussed and interpreted Section 19, Article I of the 1968 revision of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., as well as pertinent provisions of the 1885 State Constitution, i.e., Section 14, Declaration of Rights and Section 9 of Article XVI (Section 9, Article XVI became a statute pursuant to Section 10, Article XII of the schedule of the 1968 constitutional revision). The District Court also referred to and discussed the application of F.S. Sections 939.06, 939.07 and 939.08, Section 142.-09, Section 48.021, and Chapter 942, F.S.A., to this case.
It is quite apparent that the District Court construed Section 19, Article I of the 1968 revision of the Florida Constitution in the light of the statutes referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph. In reference thereto the District Court said:
Not only is there authority for the payment of costs in criminal proceedings found in the above quoted statutes, it is also found in § 19, art. I of the 1968 revision of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. which provides:
“ ‘No person charged with crime shall be compelled to pay costs before a judgment of conviction has become final.’
“This section was derived from § 14, Declaration of Rights, of the Constitution of 1885.”
It also said:
“The courts have historically followed the direction of the constitution and the statutes and have held that the defendants in criminal cases who are acquitted or discharged be allowed cost, and that the cost should be paid by the county. De Soto County Com’rs v. Howell, 51 Fla. 160, 40 So. 192 (1906); Buckman v. Alexander, 24 Fla. 46, 30 So. 817 (1888).”
The gist of the District Court’s interpretation is that a controlling new provision of the State Constitution denotes that “defendants in criminal cases who are acquitted or discharged be allowed cost, and that the cost should be paid by the county” and that this provision has been followed by the courts and that the Legislature has duly implemented this constitutional mandate by statutes. This is clearly an express construction of a controlling provision of the Constitution. Cf. Lilli-bridge v. City of Miami, supra.
Affirmed.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doran v. State, 296 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…etition for writ of certiorari is denied. HOBSON, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . Fla.Const. art. I, § 19, F.S.A. . § 939.06, F.S.A. . Wood v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1st, 1971, 248 So. 2d 176. . But see Warren v. Capuano, Fla.1973, 282 So. 2d 873. .While not raised by either party, an argument could also be made that § 57.071(1) requires the reimbursement of the bail bond premium. However, in view of the legislative history of that section, we believe it was intended to relate to civil acti…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Lelan Dale Davis, 414 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…process right to be heard and insures the judicial interest in an impartial decision based on an adversary litigation between real parties in interest. This was the procedure followed in Warren v. Capuano, 269 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), aff’d, 282 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1973). Thus, Orange County’s appeal from the trial court’s order certifying certain items for payment is dismissed as an unauthorized appeal of a nonfinal order. Davis’ cross-appeal is also dismissed as an untimely request for review of the de…
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Sawyer, 620 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1993)…. To the extent language in Lillibridge v. City of Miami, 276 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla.1973) ("[Section 939.06] expresses a general policy of the Legislature that persons acquitted or discharged shall not be liable for costs....”), and Warren v. Capuano, 282 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla.1973) (“The courts have historically ... held that the defendants in criminal cases who are acquitted or discharged be allowed cost....”), may be read as inconsistent with the present opinion, we recede from Lillibridge and Warren.…
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
- Wood v. City OF Jacksonville, 248 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Buckman v. Alexander, 24 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1888)
- George v. Warren, 269 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Geri Lillibridge v. City OF Miami, 276 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1973)
- The Cnty. Comm'rs of DeSoto Cnty. v. Howell, 51 Fla. 160 (Fla. 1906)