Thweatt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thweatt v. State

861 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 2004 WL 19502

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 2, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-500

StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 1284 (Thweatt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thweatt v. State, 861 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 2004 WL 19502 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Morris Thweatt, appeals his sentence and judgment for robbery with a weapon. On appeal, appellant raises two issues. First, appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of Administrative Order 02-26 and argues that the county court judge did not have jurisdiction to preside over his felony trial and violation of probation hearing. Second, appellant maintains that [1285]*1285the trial court erred in finding that he was guilty of violating his probation.

After review of the record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the first issue. In Wild v. Dozier, 672 So.2d 16 (Fla.1996), the supreme court held that district courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction to review administrative orders of judicial assignments. The supreme court explained:

Because of the vital role temporary judicial assignments play in the administration of our court system, this Court must have exclusive jurisdiction to review such assignments under its article V, section 2(a) authority to oversee the administrative supervision of all courts.

Wild, 672 So.2d at 18; Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, 846 So.2d 1129, 1133 (Fla.2003).

Appellant’s arguments attempt to limit the holding of Wild to situations where the challenge to judicial assignments is brought by extraordinary writ in the supreme court. The supreme court’s holding in Wild, however, supports a broader reading than appellant suggests. Appellant’s argument, in effect, attacks the holding in Wild and requests that we adopt a position in opposition to clear supreme court precedent. “Where an issue has been decided in the Supreme Court of the state, the lower courts are bound to adhere to the Court’s ruling when considering similar issues.... ” State v. Dwyer, 332 So.2d 333, 335 (Fla.1976).

Considering appellant’s second issue, we find his arguments to be totally without merit and affirm.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

SHARP, W., and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Morris Thweatt, appeals his sentence and judgment for robbery with a weapon. On appeal, appellant raises two issues. First, appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of Administrative Order 02-26 and argues that the county court judge did not have jurisdiction to preside over his felony trial and violation of probation hearing. Second, appellant maintains that [1285]*1285the trial court erred in finding that he was guilty of violating his probation.

After review of the record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the first issue. In Wild v. Dozier, 672 So.2d 16 (Fla.1996), the supreme court held that district courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction to review administrative orders of judicial assignments. The supreme court explained:

Because of the vital role temporary judicial assignments play in the administration of our court system, this Court must have exclusive jurisdiction to review such assignments under its article V, section 2(a) authority to oversee the administrative supervision of all courts.

Wild, 672 So.2d at 18; Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, 846 So.2d 1129, 1133 (Fla.2003).

Appellant’s arguments attempt to limit the holding of Wild to situations where the challenge to judicial assignments is brought by extraordinary writ in the supreme court. The supreme court’s holding in Wild, however, supports a broader reading than appellant suggests. Appellant’s argument, in effect, attacks the holding in Wild and requests that we adopt a position in opposition to clear supreme court precedent. “Where an issue has been decided in the Supreme Court of the state, the lower courts are bound to adhere to the Court’s ruling when considering similar issues.... ” State v. Dwyer, 332 So.2d 333, 335 (Fla.1976).

Considering appellant’s second issue, we find his arguments to be totally without merit and affirm.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

SHARP, W., and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 2004 WL 19502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thweatt-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack