PARRIS ALFORD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for unlawfully entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, holding that a prior conviction before a justice of the peace was not a bar to the Circuit Court trial because the justice lacked jurisdiction over the felony charge.
No, the prior conviction before the justice of the peace does not bar the Circuit Court trial because the justice of the peace had no authority to try the felony charge, and therefore, the demurrer to the plea was correctly sustained.
“The defendant was charged with a felony and the justice of the peace had no authority to try the case, and, such trial by the justice was no bar to a subsequent trial by the Circuit Court, and, therefore, the sustaining of the demurrer to the plea was not erroneous.”
This quote directly states the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court for unlawfully entering a building with intent to commit petit larceny. He pleaded in bar, cl…
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.
Mitchell, J.‘:
The plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court of Suwannee county, Spring Term 1886, for unlawfully entering a building in the day time with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit larceny.
The defendant pleaded in bar of the action, that he had before that time been convicted before a justice of the peace for the same offence. The State demurred to the plea^, and the court sustained the demurrer; the defendant was then put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for one year and the case comes here upon writ of error. No errors are assigned, and the only question to be considered is, whether or not the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s plea.
The defendant was charged with a felony and the justice of the peace had no authority to try the case, and, such trial by the justice was no bar to a subsequent trial by the Circuit Court, and, therefore, the sustaining of the demurrer to the plea was not erroneous. Boswell vs. State, 20 Fla., 869.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1908)…constitute a former jeopardy, the court in which the former prosecution took place must have had jurisdiction of the offense and of the person of the defendant; otherwise its judgment must be null and void. Clark’s Crim. Proc. 387; Alford v. State, 25 Fla. 852, 6 South. Rep. 857. The plea shows upon its face that the superior court of Fulton county, Georgia, where the former prosecutiqn took place, did not have jurisdiction of the offense for which the defendant was prosecuted. The ’plea shows that the de…
Authorities Cited
- Boswell v. State, 20 Fla. 869 (Fla. 1884)