SC06-1000 – Thomas C. Sutton, Et Al. v. State of Florida

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Supreme Court » 2008 » SC06-1000 – Thomas C. Sutton, Et Al. v. State of Florida

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: SC06-1000

Case Date: 01/10/2008

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC06-1000 ____________ THOMAS C. SUTTON, et al., Petitioners, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [January 31, 2008] LEWIS, C.J. We have for review Sutton v. State, No. 1D05-5922 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 20, 2006), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions in Housing Authority of Tampa v. Burton, 873 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), Pinfield v. State, 710 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and Guzzetta v. Hamrick, 656 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. 1 We approve the decision under review for the reasons provided in our analysis.

1. The State argues that there is no conflict jurisdiction because the action below by the First District Court of Appeal was an unpublished order without table citation and such does not constitute a "decision" as contemplated by article V,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The instant action arises from the order issued in Sutton. In the county court, the petitioners 2 filed identical motions to disqualify a trial court judge based upon the alleged bias of the judge toward the petitioners' attorneys, which was alleged to have been demonstrated during a single hearing. The trial judge was presiding over the misdemeanor criminal cases of the petitioners. The motions to section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. This argument is without merit. This Court has previously exercised its discretionary jurisdiction where the action below was an unpublished order. In Department of Law Enforcement v. House, 678 So. 2d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1996), and Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen & Heilbronner, 612 So. 2d 1378, 1379 (Fla. 1993), this Court held that jurisdiction existed under article V, section 3(b)(4), even though conflict was certified by an unpublished order (and no table citation was provided). In both House and Espinosa, this Court subsequently rendered a decision on the merits. See House, 678 So. 2d at 1284; Espinosa, 612 So. 2d at 1380. Also, in Florida Physician's Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1984), this Court held that jurisdiction existed under article V, section 3(b)(4), even though the question of great public importance was certified by unpublished order (and no table citation was provided). See id. at 514. In Stanley, this Court also subsequently rendered a decision on the merits. See id. at 515. Thus, there is precedent for this Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction with regard to unpublished orders that are without table citation, and this includes cases that involve conflict jurisdiction. Similar to the use of the word "decision" in article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, the term "decision" is also used in article V, section 3(b)(3) to define the parameters of this Court's review through discretionary jurisdiction. In the cases previously discussed, this Court has concluded that unpublished orders without table citation constitute "decisions" for discretionary jurisdiction purposes. Therefore, the decision to invoke discretionary jurisdiction in the instant case is within the existing jurisprudence of this Court. 2. There are ten separate petitioners in eleven cases, which were eventually consolidated for review in the First District. Sutton was designated as the lead case. The petitioners all argue one identical issue

Download SC06-1000 – Thomas C. Sutton, Et Al. v. State of Florida.pdf