URBIE MELBOURNE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1905-06-01
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur., Shackleford, G. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
50 Fla. 113 Florida Supreme Court (1905) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error because the record proper did not contain a verdict or final judgment, finding that such essential elements of a criminal case cannot be presented solely through a bill of exceptions. This ruling clarifies the proper procedure for appellate review in criminal matters.

Holding

No, a verdict and final judgment in a criminal case cannot be validly presented to an appellate court solely through a bill of exceptions. They must be part of the record proper, certified by the clerk.

Key Quotes

“in the record proper there is no verdict or final judgment from which a writ of error ViU lie.”

Establishes the primary reason for dismissal: the absence of a proper verdict and judgment in the record.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff in error appealed a criminal conviction. However, the appellate court found that the record presented, which included a purported verdic…

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.

Topics
Verdict Bill Of Exceptions Writ Of Error Final Judgment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This cause came on for final adjudication before Division B of the court upon the transcript of record and-briefs of counsel for the plaintiff in error Upon, investigation the court finds that in the record proper there is no verdict or final judgment from which a writ of error ViU lie. In the bill of exceptions there is set out' what purports to be a verdict of conviction and judgment or sentence, but thus evidenced this court cannot recognize them,. A verdict and the judgment or sentence in a criminal case form parta of the record proper in appellate proceedings, and have no place in a bill of exceptions certified by the judge, and when exhibited to an appellate court only in and by a bill of exceptions can uoLbe recognized.

The record proper in a cause and all matter properly belonging thereto can be authoritatively evidenced to an appellate court only by a transcript containing them duly, certified by the clerk of the court who is the custodian of such records. Merchants’ Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Grunthal, 38 Fla. 93, 20 South. Rep.

809. The writ of error herein must, therefore, be, and is hereby dismissed, but'without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff in' error to sue out another writ of error. The plaintiff iñ error being showq. to be insolvent the costs of this writ of error to be taxed against the county of Monroe.

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur. Shackleford, G. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Elkins v. State, 95 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1928)
    …Fla. 37; Renfore v. State, 76 Fla. 392; Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547, 86 So. 428. The verdict and judgment are part of the record proper, and should so appear from the transcript. Neither should appear in the bill of exceptions. Melbourne v. State, 50 Fla. 113. But if we could consider the verdict appearing in the bill of exceptions in this case, it is doubtful if it would entirely avail to cure the defect. It reads: “We the jury find the defendant guilty of grand embezzlement, so say we all.” While this…
  • Mitchem v. State, 142 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1940)
    …em is legally insufficient to support a writ of error because it is not a final judgment within the meaning of the law. See Section 8460 C. G. L.; Jackson v. State, 44 Fla. 439, 32 So. 926; Jumeau v. Camp, 48 Fla. 82, 37 So. 522; Melbourne v. State, 50 Fla. 113, 39 So. 593; Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. 944. The Court ex mero motu dismisses the writ of error as to Julian Mitehem. The judgments appealed from on the part of Bill Jack Mitehem and Dick Nowling have been' carefully considered and found…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw