IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
WILL BEACHAM PERKINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _______________________________/ _______________________________________________________ RESPONDENT'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF _______________________________________________________ On Review from the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fifth District Case No. SC08-854
BILL McCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL REBECCA ROARK WALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Fla. Bar #618586 444 Seabreeze Blvd. 5th Floor Daytona Beach, FL 32118 (386) 238-4990 FAX (386) 238-4997 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................ii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................... 1 ARGUMENT ..................................................... 2 ISSUE PRESENTED THIS COURT SHOULD NOT EXERCISE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLATE OPINION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY CONSTRUE A PROVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, NOR DOES IT EXPRESSLY AFFECT A CLASS OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATE OFFICERS ................2
CONCLUSION .................................................... 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................ 5 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................... 6
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)................................2 School Board of Pinellas County v. District Court of Appeal, 467 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1985 .................................2 Spradley v. State, 293 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1974) ................................3
OTHER AUTHORITIES: Art. I, sec. 15(a), Florida Constitution .......................3 Art. V, sec. 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution .....................2 Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(g)..........................................3
ii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Petitioner has failed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Although Petitioner argues that the district court’s opinion
expressly construes a State constitutional provision and that it expressly affects a class of constitutional or State officers, it does neither. The district court made one fleeting reference The court did not
to the State constitution in its opinion.
construe the constitutional provision, but merely made reference to it. The opinion below also fails to expressly affect any
constitutional or State officers.
The district court opinion
does not make any express reference to any such officers within the four corners of the opinion. deny jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court should
1
ARGUMENT ISSUE PRESENTED THIS COURT SHOULD NOT EXERCISE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT’S OPINION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY CONSTRUE A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, NOR DOES IT EXPRESSLY AFFECT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATE OFFICERS.
The
Florida of a
Constitution cause in
allows a
this
Court court
to
take
jurisdiction
which
district
opinion Art. V,
“expressly affects a class of constitutional officers”. sec. 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
In the context of Art. V,
“expressly” means “within the written district court opinion.” School Board of Pinellas County v. District Court of Appeal, 467 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1985); Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980). This Court held long ago: A decision which “affects a class of constitutional or state officers” must be one which does more than simply modify or construe or add to the case law which comprises much of the substantive and procedural law of this state. Such cases naturally affect all classes of constitutional or state officers, in that the members of these classes are bound by the law the same as any other citizen. To vest this Court with certiorari jurisdiction, a decision must 2
Directly and, in some way, Exclusively affect the duties, powers, validity, formation, termination or regulation of a particular class of constitutional or state officers.
Spradley v. State, 293 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1974). In the instant case, there is nothing in the district
court’s written opinion which directly or exclusively affects the duties, of powers, validity, formation, or termination, public or
regulation
prosecutors,
judges,
defenders.
Therefore, this Court should decline to take jurisdiction over the matter. Nor is there anything contained within the written opinion which expressly construes a provision of the State constitution. The district court opinion makes one fleeting reference to Art. I, sec. 15(a) of the Florida Constitution, and quotes part of one sentence of that provision. Florida opinion’s Constitution focus is in on the That is the sole mention of the entire written 3.140(g), opinion. not the The State
Fla.R.Crim.P.
constitution. The opinion neither construes the constitutional provision nor applies it. more. The mere The opinion merely mentions it, and nothing mention of a provision does not amount to
“expressly constru[ing] a provision of the State” constitution.
3
Therefore, this Court should decline to take jurisdiction over this matter.
4
CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and authorities presented,
Respondent respectfully asks this Court to deny jurisdiction in this matter. Respectfully submitted, BILL McCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL ______________________________ REBECCA ROARK WALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Fla. Bar #618586 444 Seabreeze Blvd., 5th Floor Daytona Beach, FL 32118 (386) 238-4990 FAX (386) 238-4997 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
WESLEY H. HEIDT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Fla. Bar #773026 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above Jurisdictional Brief of Respondent has been furnished by
delivery to Meghan Ann Collins, Assistant Public Defender for Petitioner, this of May, 2008. ______________________________ Rebecca Roark Wall Counsel for Respondent
5
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this brief is produced in COURIER NEW, 12 point font, and thereby fully complies with the font requirements of Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(a)(2).
______________________________ Rebecca Roark Wall Counsel for Respondent
6