NED BLUE, 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.
Ned Blue was convicted in Circuit Court of carrying a concealed pistol and challenged the court's jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction over offenses committed before a legislative amendment that reduced the maximum punishment and thereby shifted future similar offenses to justices of the peace.
The Circuit Court retained jurisdiction over the offense because the defendant's conduct occurred before the legislative amendment. The amended statute does not affect prosecution of crimes committed prior to the amendment, and the old statute remains applicable with the Circuit Court's jurisdiction intact for pre-amendment offenses.
“the repeal or amendment of any criminal statute shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such repeal or amendment”
Establishes the constitutional principle that amendments to criminal statutes do not retroactively affect crimes committed before the amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 27, 1892, Ned Blue carried a concealed pistol. An information was filed in May 1893, and on June 20, 1893, Blue moved to quash based on la…
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 Jurisdiction Of Circuit Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Raney, C. J. :
An information charging the plaintiff in error with having, on December 27th, 1892, carried secretly and concealed about his person a pistol, was filed in Jackson Circuit Court in the month of May of the present year, and afterwards, on the 20th of June, the accused moved to quash the information on the ground that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to try or sentence him for the alleged offense, but that such offense was within the trial jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. The motion having been overruled, the defendant pleaded not guilty, and on the day last stated was tried by a jury who returned a verdict of guilty, and he. was thereupon sentenced to pay a fine of $25, and the costs, assessed at $35.95, and in default of the payment thereof, to be imprisoned in the county jail for sixty days from the expiration of a sentence for an assault. When the offense was committed by the accused, the Circuit Courts had exclusive original jurisdiction of all such offenses in counties where there was no criminal court of record or county court (secs. 18, 24, 25, Art. V, Constitution), and they were punishable by “imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars,” Rev. Stat., Sec.
2421. At the late session of the Legislature, an act, Chapter 4124, revising certain sections of the Revised Statutes relating to the .carrying of concealed weapons, was passed; it having been approved by the Governor June 2d, 1893, and taking effect on such approval. The only change it makes in Section 2421 of the Revision is to substitute for the quoted words, the words “by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” The effect of this change, where there are do criminal or county courts, is to make ail offense» against it in its changed condition triable before a justice of the peace, Sec. 2840, Rev. Stat., but it does not repeal or pretend to change the former statute as to offendings under it prior to such change. The old statute stands under Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution as to such offendings, and of course the-Circuit Court retains its jurisdiction, there being no> expressed or implied abrogation of its jurisdiction,, nor any grant of jurisdiction to justices of the peace or other tribunal of such former cases. Brown vs. State, 31 Fla., 207, 12 South. Rep., 640; Ex-parte Pells, 28 Fla., 67, 9 South. Rep., 833. Of course we do not mean to intimate that the constitutional provision referred to, which is that ‘ ‘the repeal or amendment of an^ criminal statute shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such repeal or amendment,” was intended to limit any power which the Legislature may have as to «hanging the jurisdiction of courts over criminal causes. No such change is attempted, as to former offending’s, in the new legislation.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1900)…fore it is unnecessary and improper for us in this case to- adjudge whether or not-the quoted provision of our constitution would prevent ex post facto legislation expressly mitigating the prior prescribed penalties for past offences. Blue v. State, 32 Fla. 53, 13 South. Rep. 637; Brown v. State, 31 Fla. 207, 12 South. Rep. 640; Reynolds v. State, 33 Fla. 301, 14 South. Rep. 723. The overruling of the motion to quash the indictment was, therefore, correct. At the trial the defendant requested the court t…
-
Sigsbee v. State, 43 Fla. 524 (Fla. 1901)…pre-existing statute, in so far as offences are concerned that have been already committed prior to the taking" effect of such repealing or amending law.” This was in harmony with previous views expressed by this court in the cases of Blue v. State, 32 Fla. 53, 13 South. Rep. 637, and Reynolds v. State, 33 Fla. 301, 14 South. Rep. 723. It is conceded that if the indictment had been found under section 2463 before it' was amended, the decisions referred to would be conclusive against the contention made, b…
-
Mugge v. Warnell Lumber & Veneer Co., 58 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1909)…, has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of a county court, in causes commenced in the circuit court, but transferred by operation of law upon the creation of the county court to the latter court. The decision in the case of Blue v. State, 32 Fla. 53, 13 South. Rep. 637, was based upon provisions of the constitution relating to criminal cases. Whether the Judge of the Circuit Court would be disqualified to hear and determine writs of error in cases transferred to the county court is a question o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Corpus, 28 Fla. 67 (Fla. 1891)
- Brown v. State, 31 Fla. 207 (Fla. 1893)