HERMAN BARTELS
v.
THE 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 affirmed a conviction for driving under the influence, finding that while the sentence of license revocation might be harsh, it was mandated by statute. The court upheld the jury's verdict despite the evidence not being overwhelmingly strong.
Yes, the revocation of the driver's license was harsh but legally mandated by statute. The court was compelled to impose the statutory penalty despite the appellant's age, occupation, and lack of prior offenses.
“The evidence as disclosed by the record did not make out a strong case against the appellant but there was some testimony which if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the verdict.”
Establishes the court's view on the sufficiency of evidence for the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerman Bartels was charged with driving an automobile while intoxicated. The evidence presented was not exceptionally strong, but it was sufficient fo…
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 Driving While Intoxicated cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against for driving an automobile while in an intoxicated condition. The evidence as disclosed by the record did not make out a strong case against the appellant but there was some testimony which if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The trial court overruled motion for new trial and imposed a fine and also a revocation of the appellant’s driver’s license for a period of twelve months. As the appellant, a man of 61 years, runs a farm out in the country as well as a small business in the city (which farm he has to visit daily in his automobile) , and as it does not appear that he has ever been charged before with an offense of this nature, the judgment, in so far as it revokes appellant’s driver’s license for twelve months, may be rather harsh in this case, but the court was compelled to so order by the language of the second paragraph of Section 322.25 when construed in connection with Section 322.26, Fla. Statutes 1941, F. S. A. In this general connection, see Dept. of Public Safety v. Koonce, 147 Fla. 616, 3 So. (2nd) 331.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., agree to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. City OF Gainesville, 93 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1957)…se of the offender, the municipal judge merely follows the mandate of the statute as the administrative representative of the State Department of Public Safety at the municipal level. He has no discretion to exercise. Bartels v. State, 156 Fla. 535, 24 So. 2d 40. He is in no sense a State officer. The statute merely imposes this additional duty upon him as an administrative detail supplementary to his judicial functions as a city judge. We find no constitutional objection to the statutory imposition of such…
Authorities Cited
- The Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Koonce, 147 Fla. 616 (Fla. 1941)