STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. RAUL ROQUE,
v.
THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND JOHN R. HIMES, THE JUDGE THEREOF
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 reversed the denial of a prohibition writ against a criminal court's attempt to forfeit currency seized from a defendant. The court held that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to forfeit money that was not lottery winnings and that the relator, as the true owner not party to the criminal case, had no adequate remedy in that forum.
The Criminal Court of Record lacked jurisdiction to forfeit the currency because: (1) the money was not subject to forfeiture under statute, which limited forfeiture to lottery winnings; (2) the relator, as the true owner, was not a party to the criminal proceeding and had no adequate remedy there; and (3) if forfeiture were proper, jurisdiction would lie exclusively in the Circuit Court, not the Criminal Court of Record.
“In the first place, if the inferior court had no jurisdiction to forfeit then it was without power to entertain a petition for such purpose. In the second place, this relator had no standing in the criminal court. His property rights were being litigated in a proceeding where he was not a party.”
Establishes the core holding that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction and the relator lacked standing as a non-party to challenge forfeiture in that forum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Roque was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County of reckless driving and possessing lottery tickets. At arrest, $870.…
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 Forfeiture Of Currency cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an adverse judgment to relator in prohibition.
The suggestion for the writ discloses that one Daniel Roque was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County of reckless driving and possessing lottery tickets. At the time of Roque’s arrest, among other items taken from his person was $870.00 in currency. The relator here is a brother to the defendant and alleged that just prior to defendant’s arrest he entrusted the $870.00 to defendant to transmit and deposit to relator’s account in a bank. The arrest occurred while the money was in transit. The Criminal Court of Record was entertaining a petition seeking forfeiture of the currency. Relator’s claim is that the Criminal Court of Record was without jurisdiction to forfeit the money; that he was not *287a party to the action before the Criminal Court and therefore he had no other adequate remedy.
Respondent’s brief does not treat the question of whether the criminal court had jurisdiction to forfeit the money. It is cast on the presumption that the judge of that court will correctly decide such question on final hearing. We cannot accept such position. In the first place, if the inferior court had no jurisdiction to forfeit then it was without power to entertain a petition for such purpose. In the second place, this relator had no standing in the criminal court. His property rights were being litigated in a proceeding where he wag not a party.
The writ was denied by the circuit court, evidently upon the theory that the forfeiture was ancillary to the criminal prosecution. Such is the rule in case of contraband. Section 5507 R.G.S., Section 7665, C.G.L. Before currency can be forfeited there must be an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Circuit Court, et al., 110 Fla. 46, 148 So. 522; State ex rel. v. Civil Court of Record, 113 Fla. 335, 151 So. 493. Section 5512 R.G.S., Section 7670 C. G. L. In Hillsborough County the Circuit Court has exclusive original jurisdiction of claims in excess of $500.00. Section 11, Article V, Florida Constitution. If the currency were subject to forfeiture, the jurisdiction would be in the circuit court and not in the Criminal Court of Record.
In this case it does not appear that the currency was the subject of forfeiture. Section 5512 R.G.S., and Section 7670 U G. L., limits forfeiture of money to sums “drawn and won as a prize, or as a share or a prize, in any lottery. . . .” The record here shows the *288currency was not of such character and therefore it was not subject to forfeiture.
It was error to deny prohibition and the judgment is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Routh v. Routh, 565 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…a 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989). During the factual resolution, the trial court should be mindful of the procedures to be followed in forfeiture proceedings. State ex rel. Roque v. Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, 150 Fla. 285, 7 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1942); §§ 932.701, et seq., Fla.Stat. (1989). We recede from our earlier opinion only as to the issue of confiscation of the $70 and remand for the factual resolution of the conflict between the oral and written pronouncements.…
-
State ex rel. Caraker v. Amidon, 68 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1953)…icial determination of the right of forfeiture in such cases as the one before us; ■' that 'that ■ adjudication must be by a court of competent jurisdiction; * * In the case of State ex rel. Roque v. Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, 150 Fla. 285, 7 So. 2d 131, 132, this Court reversed the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County, which had denied the writ of prohibition, and said: “The writ was denied by the circuit court, evidently upon the theory that; the forfeiture was ancillary to the cr…
-
State v. Norvell, 172 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Dunnavant v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So. 2d 871; Collins v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 700, and State ex rel. Rogue v. Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, 1942, 150 Fla. 285, 7 So. 2d 131. SMITH, C. J., and WHITE, J., and TEDDER, GEORGE W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. E. H. Padgett v. The Cir. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Cir. of the State of Fla. in & for Dade Cnty., 110 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Civil Court of Record, 113 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1933)