THE HONORABLE JOHN ADAMS, ORANGE COUNTY JUDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., ROBERT EAGAN, STATE ATTORNEY, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, APPELLEE
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 county judge issued a discovery order requiring the state to answer interrogatories in a criminal case under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(5). The circuit court granted the state's writ of prohibition, but the District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the county court had jurisdiction to enter the discovery order and therefore the writ of prohibition was improper.
The county court had jurisdiction to enter the discovery order because it had original jurisdiction over the criminal case and jurisdiction over both the parties and subject matter. Although the county court may have erred in the exercise of jurisdiction, it did not exceed or usurp jurisdiction. Therefore, the circuit court erred in issuing the writ of prohibition, and the writ must be quashed.
[1] A county court has original jurisdiction in all misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the circuit court, including jurisdiction over parties and subject matter.
[2] A trial court has the authority to order discovery beyond that specifically enumerated in the rules upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense and wh…
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“Upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense, the court may require such other discovery to defense counsel as justice may require.”
The rule cited by the county judge authorizing the discovery order in question.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a criminal case before the county court, the defendant propounded interrogatories seeking discovery. The county judge ordered the state to answer t…
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 County Court cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a writ of prohibition granted by the circuit court directed to a county judge.
The county judge ordered the state in a criminal case to answer certain interrogatories propounded by the defendant regarding certain discovery sought by the defendant. The county judge relied upon Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(5) as authority for requiring the interrogatories to be answered. This rule states:
Upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense, the court may require such other discovery to defense counsel as justice may require.
This is an interesting proposition and one which begs to be treated here. However, we are without authority, under existing case law, to render a substantial decision.
Pursuant to Article V, Sections 6(b) and 20(c)(4), Florida Constitution and Sections 34.01(l)(a) and 900.03(1), Florida Statutes (1983), the county court is vested with original jurisdiction in all misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the circuit court. Such jurisdiction includes jurisdiction over the parties as well as over the subject matter. The county court was therefore within its jurisdiction to enter the discovery order. Although the county court may have erred in the exercise of jurisdiction, it did not exceed or usurp jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction.
In an attempt to reach the merits of this cause, we have considered giving effect to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) which would permit treating the petition by the state in the circuit court as a petition for writ of certiorari, or even an appeal. But we are unable to do so. In McIntosh v. State, 496 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1986), the supreme court recently held in no uncer tain terms that the state cannot obtain certiorari in cases where it has no specific right of appeal. The court said: “ ... because the district court found that the state had no right to directly appeal the pretrial order, it was without authority to afford review by way of certiorari.” Id. Since the state is not authorized to appeal discovery orders by rule or otherwise, the application of this appellate rule does not present a viable alternative.
Because we find the trial court was within its jurisdiction to enter the discovery order, we must conclude that the circuit court erred in issuing its writ of prohibition. Accordingly, the writ is quashed.
WRIT QUASHED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Arriagada, 508 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…uld have explicitly receded from State v. Smith_”). But see State v. Patmore, 495 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1986); Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1985); State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1985); State v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla.1985); Adams v. State, 495 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), which seem to indicate to the contrary. In response to this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, the State of Florida concedes that the trial court’s order suppressing the identification does not…
Authorities Cited
- McINTOSH v. State, 496 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1986)