JAMES PARRISH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 affirms the trial court's judgment in a second appeal regarding whether courts may place defendants convicted of second-degree murder on probation. The Court, while affirming under the law of the case doctrine, signals it is not bound by its prior holding and may reconsider the statutory construction issue in future cases.
The Court affirms its prior answer that a trial court does not have power to place a defendant convicted of second-degree murder on probation. However, the majority indicates it is not convinced the prior holding is correct and signals willingness to reconsider and potentially overrule this conclusion in future cases where the Court is free to do so.
“The trial court was bound by the enunciations of this Court as set forth and promulgated in that opinion and judgment.”
Establishes the law of the case doctrine binding the trial court to follow the Supreme Court's prior holding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Parrish was adjudged guilty of second-degree murder. The trial court, following the Court's prior decision in related proceedings (State v. Tayl…
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 Probation Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us the second time. See State v. Taylor and State ex rel. Parrish v. Coleman, 151 Fla. 296, 9 So. (2nd) 708.
The law of the case was established by the majority opinion and the entry of the judgment in the cases, supra. The trial court was bound by the enunciations of this Court as set forth and promulgated in that opinion and judgment. See Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Airline Ry., 65 Fla. 490, 62 So. 482; Fidelity, etc., v. Aultman, 61 Fla. 198, 55 So. 273; Pervis v. Frink, 61 Fla. 712, 54 So. 862; Williams v. Phiel, 66 Fla. 192, 63 So. 658; Valdosta Mercantile Co. v. White, 56 Fla. 704, 47 So. 961; First Nat. Bank v. Ulmer, 66 Fla. 68, 63 So. 145; McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Sanders v. State, 82 Fla. 498, 90 So. 455; Fairlee v. Scott, 88 Fla. 229, 102 So. 247; Cooney-Eckstein Co. v. King, 69 Fla. 246, 67 So. 918; Commercial Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 80 Fla. 685, 87 So. 315; Doyle v. Wade, 23 Fla. 90, 1 So. 516, 11 Am. St. Rep. 334; Wilson v. Fridenberg, 21 Fla. 386; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, (Fla.) 139 So. 800; Bryan v. Duncan, (Fla.) 143 So. 353; Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, (Fla) 143 So. 792. See also, Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa, 124 Fla. 932, 935.
The trial court followed the opinion and mandate of this Court and may not now be held in error in so doing.
The only question on this appeal is the identical question which was presented by the certified question of the trial court in the former proceeding here, viz.:
“Does a trial court have power to place on probation one adjudged guilty of second degree murder?”
We answered that question in the negative. The answer to this question involved the construction of Section 20, Chapter 20519, Acts of 1941, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
“Section 20. When Courts May Place Defendant on Probation. The Courts of the State of Florida having original jurisdiction of criminal actions, where the defendant in a criminal case has been found guilty upon verdict or plea, *107except for an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, may, at a time to be determined by the court, hear and determine the question of the probation of such defendant.”
After further consideration of the provisions of the above quoted portion of the statute, the majority of the Court is not convinced that our holding in the opinion, supra, rendered on certified question is correct and it may be that upon the same question being presented in another case we would overrule the conclusion heretofore reached and may hold that the Circuit Court under this statute is precluded from exercising the power of probation only in those cases where the defendant has been found guilty upon verdict or plea of an offense which is punishable in the alternative by death or life imprisonment and is not precluded from exercising the power of probation in cases in which the penalty may be either life imprisonment or imprisonment for a less period of time.
We, therefore, take occasion now to announce that we shall not in the future be held to be bound by our opinion and judgment herein referred to heretofore entered in this cause but will reconsider our construction of this statute when a case is presented in which we are free to do so.
For the reasons stated,. the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
TERRELL, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees only to the judgment of affirmance.
BROWN, J., dissents to overruling the cited case but concurs in affirmance.
CHAPMAN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (18 total)
- Palm Beach Ests. v. Bula E. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1932)
- McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1909)
- The Commercial Bank of Ocala v. The First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 80 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1920)
- Doyle v. Matilda Wade, 23 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1887)
- Theophilus Pascoe and Dixie Pascoe v. Tobias, 69 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1915)
- A. R. Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 65 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1913)
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1932)
- Wilson v. Phœbe Fridenberg, 21 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1885)
- Fairlie v. Scott, 88 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1924)
- Pervis v. Talulah H. Frink, 61 Fla. 712 (Fla. 1911)