JACK W. FILMON, 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.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the trial court's decision directly passed on the validity of a state statute, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.
[1] Appellate jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court of Florida when a trial court initially and directly passes on the validity of a state statute.
[2] A trial court's ruling on the constitutionality of a state statute, even on grounds different from those previously litigated, implicates the Supreme Court's exclusive ap…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed, challenging the admission of blood alcohol level evidence. The trial court upheld the constituti…
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a timely appeal in this court from conviction of two counts of manslaughter, for which appellant was sentenced to 10 years probation. Appellant contends, inter alia, that evidence of his blood alcohol level was improperly admitted as evidence against him at his trial.
Upon oral argument it appears the trial court upheld the validity of Fla.Stat. § 322.261 in face of appellant’s attack on its constitutionality.
Article V, § 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of appeals “ . from orders of trial courts and decisions of district courts of appeal initially and directly passing on the validity of a state statute . . . .” Although the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Fla.Stat. § 322.261 in State v. Mitchell, Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 618, the statute was there assailed on the grounds that the blood withdrawn from Mitchell was taken without his consent after an accident and violated the constitutional guarantees against compulsory self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure. In the case sub judice the appellant attacked the validity of the statute on grounds that the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions were violated. Appellant’s theory is that an unconscious or semi-conscious person is discriminated against in that a conscious person has the option to consent to a taking of his blood while an unconscious or semi-conscious person is never afforded that option.
Considering the foregoing, it appears that inasmuch as the trial court passed directly on the validity of Fla.Stat. § 322.261, though on grounds differing from those raised in Mitchell, supra, that exclusive jurisdiction of these consolidated appeals is, nevertheless, now vested in the Supreme Court in accordance with Article V, § 3 (b)(1), Constitution of Florida. It is therefore, upon consideration,
Ordered and adjudged that Appeals 74-760 and 74-761 are hereby transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida for consideration and determination.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.