Page v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Page v. State

113 So. 2d 557, 1959 Fla. LEXIS 1513

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 So. 2d 557 (Page v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Page v. State, 113 So. 2d 557, 1959 Fla. LEXIS 1513 (Fla. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of perjury in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County. The appellant seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this.Court under the provision of Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing a direct appeal where the trial court construes a controlling provision of the Federal or State Constitution. Appellant asserts that the information charged him with the commission of perjury in a former trial in which he was the defendant and that therefore the second prosecution for perjury would constitute double jeopardy. Therefore he says that the trial court in denying his motion to quash did thereby pass upon a controlling provision of the Federal and State Constitutions to his grevous injury.

So far as our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal is concerned, appellant has presented merely a colorable assertion presenting no substantial basis upon which an appeal will lie under the above-cited constitutional provision.¹ Jurisdiction to decide this question is clearly vested in the District Court of Appeal. Moreover, this case falls squarely within the principle announced by this Court that the application of the facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution does not amount to a decision upon which this Court could entertain a direct appeal.² For us to entertain jurisdiction under this provision of the Constitution “the trial judge must undertake to explain, define or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision.” ³

It is, therefore, ordered that the notice of appeal and all other papers filed herein shall, at the expiration of five days from the filing of this order, be transferred to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.⁴

It is so ordered.

THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of perjury in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County. The appellant seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this.Court under the provision of Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing a direct appeal where the trial court construes a controlling provision of the Federal or State Constitution. Appellant asserts that the information charged him with the commission of perjury in a former trial in which he was the defendant and that therefore the second prosecution for perjury would constitute double jeopardy. Therefore he says that the trial court in denying his motion to quash did thereby pass upon a controlling provision of the Federal and State Constitutions to his grevous injury.

So far as our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal is concerned, appellant has presented merely a colorable assertion presenting no substantial basis upon which an appeal will lie under the above-cited constitutional provision.¹ Jurisdiction to decide this question is clearly vested in the District Court of Appeal. Moreover, this case falls squarely within the principle announced by this Court that the application of the facts in a case to a recognized clear-cut provision of the Constitution does not amount to a decision upon which this Court could entertain a direct appeal.² For us to entertain jurisdiction under this provision of the Constitution “the trial judge must undertake to explain, define or otherwise eliminate existing doubts arising from the language or terms of the constitutional provision.” ³

It is, therefore, ordered that the notice of appeal and all other papers filed herein shall, at the expiration of five days from the filing of this order, be transferred to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.⁴

It is so ordered.

THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 2d 557, 1959 Fla. LEXIS 1513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-state-fla-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack