FRANK RAYMOND BAYES, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, 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.
A Florida appellate court granted certiorari to review a conviction for operating coin-operated movie machines without required municipal license decals. The court found that the circuit court erred by failing to address on the merits the petitioner's defense that the City had removed the decals during an unconstitutional seizure and then arrested him before issuing replacements.
The circuit court erred in failing to consider the merits of the petitioner's defense regarding municipal misconduct. Although the court could sustain its ruling on the timeliness of pretrial motions, it was required to review and address the substantive defense that was presented at trial.
[1] A conviction for operating coin-operated machines without required license decals may be overturned if the decals were removed by city agents and replacement decals had n…
[2] A trial court may abuse its discretion by refusing to consider a defense of governmental misconduct, even if pretrial motions raising the issue were untimely.
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“the sole issue was the timeliness of certain pretrial motions to dismiss which raised the issue of misconduct and the removal of the decals”
Establishes that the circuit court focused narrowly on procedural timeliness rather than the substantive merits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Bayes was a clerk operating thirteen coin-operated movie machines in a commercial establishment. The City had previously seized these machi…
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 Municipal Ordinance Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition for common law certiorari seeks to overturn a decision of the circuit court affirming a county court conviction. Petitioner was convicted and fined for violating Section 5-43 of the Code of Municipal Ordinances of the City of Hollywood. The case was prosecuted below by the City of Hollywood. The ordinance in question requires that license decals issued by the City be affixed to and displayed on all coin operated movie machines in the City. The petitioner was operating a commercial establishment in which thirteen such machines were present without the necessary decals. The proof at trial showed these machines had been seized by the City in a raid on the same commercial establishment a short time before petitioner’s arrest. The license decals had been removed by agents of the City during the seizure. The machines were then returned to the owner without the decals pursuant to a court order which held the seizure of the machines unconstitutional. Before petitioner’s arrest, the store owner applied for replacement decals but the City had not yet issued them when City police officers arrested petitioner, a clerk in the store, for operating the machines without decals.
At trial, the county judge found petitioner guilty and announced that removal of the decals by the City was simply not “pertinent” to the charged offense of operating without the decals. On appeal to the circuit court, the conviction was affirmed by an opinion of July 22, 1982. This opinion recites that the sole issue was the timeliness of certain pretrial motions to dismiss which raised the issue of misconduct and the removal of the decals. The county court had refused to rule upon the motions to dismiss because one was filed six days prior to trial and the other was filed on the day of trial. The circuit court concluded that the motions were untimely and that the county court had not abused its discretion in refusing to consider the motions. Unfortunately, and for reasons not reflected by the record, the circuit court did not go further and review the merits of petitioner’s defense of misconduct on the part of the police or other municipal authorities. Even if these matters were not properly raised by the pretrial motions, the defense was certainly presented during the trial. This was the central point presented to the circuit court in the appeal and the court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to consider the merits of the entire case.
We thus grant the writ; quash the decision; and remand to the circuit court for review on the merits.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.