Sims v. State

26 Fla. 97
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 Fla. 97 (Sims 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
Sims v. State, 26 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1890).

Opinion

Raney, C. J.:

This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered by the Circuit Judge of the Sixth Circuit in a habeas corpus proceeding.

[101]*101It appears that the County Solicitor of Lake county, who is the prosecuting officer in the Criminal Court of Record of that county, filed in the office of the clerk of thatf court on the fourth day of the present-month, March, an information charging the plaintiff in error with having embezzled $2,100.60, the property of the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company, a corporation under the laws of this State, and on the same day a'warrant was issued by the clerk commanding the sheriff to arrest Sims, and have him before the Judge of the above Criminal Court of Record, at the court-house at Tavares, on the eighth day of April of the present year, to answer the State on an information for embezzlement filed against him by the County Solicitor. The sheriff arrested Sims on the same day, and endorsed his action on the writ; and it appears from the transcript before us that Judge Gaines, of the Criminal Court of Record, endorsed on the information an order that the prisoner might be admitted to bail in the sum of. $2,500, on giving good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by the sheriff.

Sims, while thus in the custody of the sheriff, presented to the Circuit Judge on the next day, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he' was so detained without lawful authority, and deprived of his liberty without probable cause, and to his right to a preliminary examination, and that the Criminal Court of Record was not in session when the above mentioned information, upon which the warrant was issued, was filed, nor was it in session at the time of presenting the petition, nor could the term of such Criminal Court of Record, as of which the information is entitled and purports upon its face to be presented, viz : the April Term, A D. 1890, be held for more than a month. That he was innocent ®f the charge brought against him; [102]*102that he was until recently agent of the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad, at Tavares, in Lake county, and that on the 2 ist of January, 1890, the railroad depot of the company was destroyed by fire with all its contents, including a large sum of money in the safe belonging to the company, and, that because he is unable to replace the money and property so destroyed, a charge of embezzlement has been trumped up against him, and he has been arrested and is held, in custody as above stated, there being no evidence to warrant or authorize his arrest, and the same being made for the purpose of terrorizing and intimidating him, and the petitioner being required to give “enormous and excessive” bail in the sum of $2,500, which he is unable to do. The petitioner prayed the issuance of the writ and that the matter of his custody and detention might be inquired into and he be discharged from custody.

The writ having issued, the sheriff made return to it that he held the petitioner under the warrant described above as issued by the Clerk of the Criminal Court of'Record of Lake county ; and on the sixth day of March the cause came on to be heard upon the above record and an admission by the County Solicitor, upon whom notice of the hearing had been served, that the County Criminal Court of Record of Lake county was not then in session, nor when the information was filed; and the Circuit Judge refused to permit any evidence of the facts upon which the information was based to be brought before him, and remanded the petitioner “ to the custody of the sheriff, as it appears a Criminal Court of Record of Lake county has jurisdiction.”

To this judgment a writ of error was granted on the next day by a Justice of this court, returnable to the court in term at its present sitting.

It is insisted on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the [103]*103information was unlawfully filed, as it was filed in vacation and not in open court, and that consequently the warrant was issued without authority of law, and the prosecution is not by due process of law under the twelfth section of the Declaration of Rights of our Constitution.

The Constitution provides for the establishment by the Legislature of a Criminal Court of Record in any county upon application of a majority of the registered voters, and that there shall be one judge for each of said courts, and that the said “courts ” shall have jurisdiction of all criminal cases not capital which shall arise in said counties, respectively, and that there shall be six terms of these courts in each year, and there shall be for each 'of the courts a prosecuting attorney, and that “ all offenses triable in said court shall be prosecuted upon information under oath, to be filed by the prosecuting attorney, but the grand jury of the Circuit Court for the county in which said Criminal Court is held may indict for offenses triable in the Criminal Court, and upon the finding of such indictment the Circuit Judge shall commit or bail the accused for trial in the Criminal Court, which trial shall be upon information. Sections 24-28, Art. V., Const. 1885.

The Criminal Court of Record of Lake county was established by a statute approved May nth, 1889, Pamphlet Laws of 1889, p. 169, which enacts that the court shall have jurisdiction to tr.y and determine all violations of the criminal laws of the State arising in that county and not punishable by capital punishment; that there shall be held six terms of the court in each year, the same to begin on the second Tuesdays in February, April, and the other alternate months; that the said court shall exercise the same power in issuing warrants, attachments and summonses as is had and exercised by the Circuit Courts of the [104]*104State in criminal cases, which processes shall be executed in the same manner and by the same officers as the process of the Circuit Court is now executed; and the same rules of procedure and practice which now obtain in the trial of criminal cases in the Circuit Court shall obtain in this Court; that its judge shall have, the same” powers, duties and obligations in the administration of the criminal laws as are now exercised by and imposed upon the Judge of the Circuit Court. That the powers and duties of the County Solicitor, the prosecuting officer of the court, shall be the same as those now exercised by and imposed upon the State Attorney, except as afterwards provided in the act. The County Solicitor is “ allowed ” the process of the court “ to compel the attendance of witnesses before him, in or out of term, at such convenient times and places as may be designated in the summons, to testify before him as to any violation of the criminal law upon which they may be interrogated, and writs of attachment or summons for such witnesses shall at any time be issued from said court upon the written order of the County Solicitor filed with the clerk;” and such Solicitor is authorized to administer oaths to all witnesses summoned by the process of the court. All offences triable by this court are to be prosecuted upon information filed by the County Solicitor under oath, and the same rules of pleading and practice as now obtain in trials by indictment it is declared shall obtain in trials by information

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

Related

Bedami v. State
112 So. 2d 284 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Ex Parte: Livingston
156 So. 612 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Gomez v. Spencer
151 So. 395 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Ex parte Davidson
79 So. 727 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Ex parte Vickery
51 Fla. 141 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Fla. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-state-fla-1890.