STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL., ROBERT WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RELATOR,
v.
E. WILSON PURDY, SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND JACK SANDSTROM, CHIEF OF JAIL DIVISION, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida appellate court rejected a class action petition for habeas corpus relief filed by an incarcerated individual claiming that he and others similarly situated were denied notice of their right to counsel at preliminary hearings. The court held that class actions are not appropriate remedies in habeas corpus proceedings and, addressing the individual petition on its merits, found no constitutional violation under Coleman v. Alabama because the defendant was bound over via information filed directly by the State Attorney rather than through the preliminary hearing.
The court held that class actions are not an appropriate remedy in habeas corpus proceedings. On the merits of Williams's individual petition, the court held that no violation of the right to counsel occurred because Williams was bound over via information filed directly by the State Attorney, which procedure falls outside the Coleman v. Alabama requirements.
[1] A class action is not an appropriate remedy in a habeas corpus proceeding.
[2] The doctrine of harmless error applies to the right to counsel at state preliminary hearings.
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“We hold that a class action is not an appropriate remedy in a habeas corpus proceeding for the various reasons set forth in In Re Kosopud, 272 F. 330 (N.D. Ohio 1920); Riley v. City and County of Denver, 137 Colo. 312, 324 P.2d 790 (1958); Petition of Santiago, 104 N.J.Super. 110, 248 A.2d 701 (1968); Ferree v. Douglas, 145 Pa.Super. 447, 21 A.2d 472 (1941); and 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 77a.”
Establishes that the court rejected class actions as an appropriate remedy in habeas corpus proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Williams filed a habeas corpus petition individually and purporting to represent a class of all persons incarcerated in Dade County Jail who we…
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 Equitable Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, Robert Williams, has filed here a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, individually and on behalf of all others alleged to be in his class.
Petitioner alleged, that his class is composed of all persons presently incarcerated in the Dade County Jail who were not advised of their right to counsel and their right to have counsel appointed for them if they could not afford a lawyer at a preliminary hearing in Dade County, Florida, and who, as a result, were bound over and held answerable to the Criminal Court, in and for Dade County, Florida. He alleged that his class action was authorized under Rule 1.220, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., and that the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus is required under Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970).
We ordered briefs to be filed and permitted oral argument on the applicability of a class suit in a habeas corpus proceeding.
The state’s position is that Rule 1.010, R.C.P. does not authorize an original class action to be filed in the District Court of Appeal as it is not a trial court and that the proper court, if any, for a class action involving fact questions should be the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. See Rule 4.5(a) (2), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. Ordinarily in Florida, class actions are permitted only in equitable actions and we know of no state authority and none has been cited which permits a class action to be used in a habeas corpus proceeding. Cf. Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 734.
Petitioner contends that class actions have been allowed in habeas corpus proceedings in Federal Courts in instances where a common point of law was involved. See Adderly v. Wainwright, 46 F.R.D. 97 (M.D. Fla.1968). Cf. Hill v. Nelson, 272 F.Supp. 790 (N.D. Cal. 1967). We do not believe that a common point of law is involved herein and observe that the propriety of this class would involve several factual issues.
We will not rule on the procedural questions raised herein inasmuch as we believe that this proceeding may be disposed of by a ruling on the substantive question.
We hold that a class action is not an appropriate remedy in a habeas corpus proceeding for the various reasons set forth in In Re Kosopud, 272 F. 330 (N.D. Ohio 1920); Riley v. City and County of Denver, 137 Colo. 312, 324 P.2d 790 (1958); Petition of Santiago, 104 N.J.Super. 110, 248 A.2d 701 (1968); Ferree v. Douglas, 145 Pa.Super. 447, 21 A.2d 472 (1941); and 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 77a.
Turning to the petition of Williams individually we note that in Coleman, supra, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel at state preliminary hearings was subject to the doctrine of Harmless Error and it remanded that cause for determination by the state court of whether any prejudice to the defendant therein had occurred at the preliminary hearing.
In the return of the state to the individual petition of Williams it is demonstrated that Williams is being held as a result of an information filed directly by the State Attorney and that such information was filed as a result of testimony given to an Assistant State Attorney and without reference to any investigation made by the committing magistrate at the preliminary hearing. The state’s position is that this procedure removes the proceedings against Williams from the requirements of Coleman and that such procedure is proper un*500der Di Bona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192. We concur.
The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied individually and as to this alleged class.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)…overview of the history of the writ of habeas corpus, see State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207 (1933). . Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 269, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1052, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). . See State ex rel. Williams v. Purdy, 242 So. 2d 498 (3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 248 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1971), citing In re Kosopud, 272 F. 330 (N.D. Ohio 1920) and Riley v. City and County of Denver, 137 Colo. 312, 324 P. 2d 790 (1958). . See Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (3d DCA 1976), cert. denied…1 / 2
-
Brynwood Condo., Inc. v. Harbour Club Villas Condo. Ass'n & Quayside Assocs., Ltd., 436 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…eal was not prosecuted as a class action nor could it have been certified as a class action. Compare: Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1981); Wags Transportation System, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1956); State v. Purdy, 242 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Kearney v. Saline, 208 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Rule 1.220 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Class actions are normally instituted in a trial court and not in an appellate court. Therefore, we find the appellant’s content…
-
Williams v. Purdy, 248 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1971)…Appeal dismissed. 242 So. 2d 498. ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and BOYD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1970)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)