STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DANIEL LAVALLEY, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's Second District Court of Appeal held that defendants accused of violating zoning ordinances with a maximum jail sentence of 60 days or less are not entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court reversed the circuit court's reversal of LaValley's county court conviction and reinstated his conviction for a zoning violation.
Defendants do not have a constitutional right to jury trial for offenses carrying a maximum sentence of incarceration of 60 days or less. County ordinance violations are classified as "petty offenses" under the framework established by the United States Supreme Court and followed by Florida, and therefore do not require jury trial availability.
[1] There is no right to a jury trial for offenses where the maximum potential incarceration is 60 days or less.
[2] Offenses carrying a maximum penalty of up to six months imprisonment are classified as "petty" and do not require a jury trial.
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“there is no right to jury trial for offenses for which the maximum sentence is incarceration for 60 days or less”
States the core holding of the case regarding the petty offense doctrine as applied to ordinance violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaValley was cited for violating a Pinellas County zoning regulation. He pleaded not guilty, requested a trial, and indicated his desire for a jury tr…
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 Serious Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
The state petitions for writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s order reversing respondent LaValley’s county court conviction of a zoning violation for refusal to afford him a jury trial. We hold that there is no right to jury trial for offenses for which the maximum sentence is incarceration for 60 days or less, and we, therefore, grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
Upon being cited for violation of a Pinel-las County zoning regulation, respondent filed a plea of not guilty and request for trial. On the date set for trial, respondent appeared and indicated his desire for a jury trial. The trial court replied that respondent was not entitled to a jury trial and a bench trial followed. Respondent was found guilty of the violation charged and was fined $30.00.
Respondent appealed his conviction to the circuit court on the ground that he had been denied his constitutional right to a jury trial. The circuit court reversed, concluding that an accused has a right to a jury trial where there exists the possibility of incarceration for any period. The state now petitions for writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s order. A violation of a county ordinance is a misdemeanor the maximum sentence of imprisonment for which is 60 days. Section 125.69, Florida Statutes (1977).1
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), that the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth,' requires that defendants accused of serious crimes be afforded the right to trial by jury, but reaffirmed the long established view that so-called “petty offenses” may be tried without a jury. In Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970), the Supreme Court established that offenses carrying a possible penalty of up to six months imprisonment were to be classified as “petty,” but that an offense carrying a maximum of more than six months is sufficiently “serious” to require an opportunity for jury trial. See also Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966).
In Boyd v. County of Dade, 123 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1960), the Supreme Court of Florida followed the same “petty offense” logic as that of the United States Supreme Court and held that the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Florida Constitution does not obtain for violations of municipal ordinances carrying a maximum jail sentence of 60 days. Reaffirmed in State v. Webb, 335 So. 2d 826 (Fla.1976). See also Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1973).
The law is clear. Respondent was not entitled to a jury trial and the county court did not err in refusing him one. Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the circuit court’s order of reversal and remand with instructions to reinstate the judgment and sentence entered by the county court.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . The Pinellas County zoning regulations limit incarceration for a violation thereof to a maximum of 30 days.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Reed, 448 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…e Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968). The other district courts of appeal in Florida have consistently held that there is no right to jury trial for petty offenses under the state constitution. State v. La-Valley, 362 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA), appeal dismissed, 366 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1978) (zoning violation carrying a penalty for a misdemeanor under section 125.69, Florida Statutes (1977)); City of Tampa v. Ippolito, 360 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (violation of municipal o…
-
State v. Flores, 48 Fla. Supp. 160 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)…n holding that no right to jury trial exists in such circumstances, the appellate court seemed to impliedly uphold the penalty provisions of municipal and county ordinance violations, see City of Tampa at page 1318. Similarly, in State v. LaValley, 362 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2 DCA 1978), the court was faced with whether there existed a right to jury trial even though the maximum sentence for the offense was incarceration for 60 days. In holding that no right to jury trial attached, the court stated at page 304 —…
Authorities Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968)
- Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1970)
- Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1966)
- Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1973)
- Boyd v. Cnty. OF Dade, 123 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1960)
- State v. Webb, 335 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1976)