CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY M. COUTS, 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.
The City of Fort Lauderdale appealed a circuit court's reversal of a prostitution conviction, arguing the trial court erred in allowing an entrapment defense. The District Court of Appeal treated the improvidently filed appeal as a certiorari petition and affirmed, finding adequate evidence supported the entrapment defense.
The court affirmed the circuit court's reversal, finding that adequate competent evidence supported the applicability of the entrapment defense and that the circuit court, sitting as an appellate court, did not exceed its jurisdiction or depart from the essential requirements of law.
[1] An improvidently filed notice of appeal may be treated as a petition for certiorari if the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari.
[2] Circuit courts have final appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in municipal courts.
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“As noted this appeal is from a decision rendered by the circuit court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. There is no provision for the appeal of such a decision to this court. However, F.S. Section 59.45, F.S.A., provides where an appeal is improvidently taken, when the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari, a notice of appeal and the record thereon may be regarded and acted on as a properly presented petition for certiorari.”
Establishes the procedural mechanism for converting an improper direct appeal into a certiorari petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Fort Lauderdale police officer called the defendant, Dorothy Couts, indicating interest in 'companionship,' then arranged to meet her at a motel whe…
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 Final Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter was presented in the form of a direct appeal, not as a petition for common law certiorari. The significance of this procedure will be touched upon in the brief opinion which follows.
The facts which generated this appeal can be briefly stated. An officer of the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department obtained a room at a local motel in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, after having called the defendant, stating to her that he understood from a mutual source that “we could have companionship”. Subsequently, the defendant, Dorothy Couts, came to the motel room where a second police officer was registered, the defendant being arrested after certain planned events took place.
Thereafter, the defendant was charged in the Municipal Court of the City of Fort Lauderdale with offering to commit prostitution in contravention of the applicable Florida Statute and city ordinance. Trial was held on December 11, 1968, following which, the defendant was adjudicated guilty. The conviction was appealed to the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, the appeal resulting in a reversal. Subsequently, the City of Fort Lauderdale filed its notice of appeal seeking a review of the *875order of circuit court which overturned the trial court’s finding of guilt.
The points raised by the City on appeal suggest that the reviewing court (circuit court) committed error in allowing the defense of entrapment, and in applying, to the facts of the case, the holdings as enunciated in the Miranda1 and Escobedo 2 decisions.
The Constitution of the State of Florida, as revised in 1968, provides in Article V § 6(3), F.S.A., that the circuit courts shall have final appellate jurisdiction of all cases arising in municipal courts.
The appellate jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal emanates from Article V § 5, of the Florida Constitution (as revised in 1968), which provides, in part, that appeals from trial courts in each appellate district may be taken to the court of appeal of such district as a matter of right.
As noted this appeal is from a decision rendered by the circuit court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. There is no provision for the appeal of such a decision to this court. However, F.S. Section 59.45, F.S.A., provides where an appeal is improvidently taken, when the remedy might have been more properly sought by certiorari, a notice of appeal and the record thereon may be regarded and acted on as a properly presented petition for certiorari. See City of Miami Beach v. Eason, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 652.
Accordingly, we have treated the appeal and the record thereon as a petition for certiorari, and in this context, conclude that the circuit court sitting as an appellate court did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not depart from the essential requirements of law.3 The record reflects adequate competent evidence to support the applicability of the defense of entrapment. (See sources cited in 52 A.L.R.2d 1194). Also, Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 745.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., McCAIN, J., and METZ-GER, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crayton v. State, 46 Fla. Supp. 174 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1977)…ctive and lengthy participation in the lewd conduct for which the defendant was convicted, was so outrageous as to shock the court’s conscience and require that the prosecution against the defendant be dismissed. See City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Couts, 239 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Spencer v. State, 263 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); United States v. Kros, 296 F. Supp. 972 (E. D. Pa. 1969). Moreover, the defendant may not be convicted of resisting without [*175] violence her thus-unlawful arrest. Accordin…
-
Tuccicaselli v. Hernandez, 576 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ppeal of the decision of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit court. Because the circuit court was acting in its appellate capacity, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(3)(b)(2)(b); City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Couts, 239 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We deny the petition for writ of certiora-ri, finding no merit to the petitioner’s arguments. HERSEY, C.J., POLEN, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- State v. Furen, 118 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1960)
- State v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Arvida Corp. v. The City OF Sarasota, 213 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Michael v. Schekter, 185 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Eason, 194 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)