 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Caswell10/31/2003
Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.
The state seeks certiorari review of a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Bay County acting in its capacity as an appellate court, by which it affirmed a county court order granting post-conviction relief on respondent's claim that her "no contest" plea to the charge of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI) was not voluntary because she was not informed prior to the plea that as a consequence of the DUI conviction (apparently her fourth), the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles could permanently revoke her driver's license pursuant to section 322.28(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The circuit court essentially ruled that revocation of a driver's license, a statutorily mandated administrative act, is a direct consequence of a plea to a specified driving offense, requiring defense counsel to warn the defendant prior to the entry of the plea. We find certiorari review is appropriate under the circumstances.
When a district court of appeal reviews, by means of the discretionary common-law writ of certiorari, an order of a circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity over a county court, the proper inquiry is whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether it applied the correct law, and certiorari discretion should be exercised only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003); Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000); Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 528-30 (Fla. 1995); Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95-96 (Fla. 1983). In Heggs, the supreme court concluded that in this context,"`applied the correct law' is synonymous with `observing the essential requirements of law.'" 658 So. 2d at 530.
As Judge Altenbernd observed in Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979, 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), "In essence, the supreme court has cautioned the district courts to be prudent and deliberate when deciding to exercise this extraordinary power, but not so wary as to deprive litigants and the public of essential justice." And as Judge Wigginton explained in State v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 792, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960): "Failure to observe the essential requirements of law means failure to accord due process of law within the contemplation of the Constitution, or the commission of an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the judgment and render it void." Citing Mathews v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 89 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1956), Judge Wigginton went on to observe:
It seems to be the settled law of this state that the duty of a court to apply to admitted facts a correct principle of law is such a fundamental and essential element of the judicial process that a litigant cannot be said to have had the remedy by due course of law, guaranteed by Section 4 of the Declaration of Rights of our Constitution, if the judge fails or refuses to perform that duty.
118 So. 2d at 795. In Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 888-90, the supreme court approved this court's decision to exercise certiorari jurisdiction, the basis of which was this court's determination that the circuit court had "applied the incorrect law" and that the circuit court's "purely legal error" was "sufficiently egregious or fundamental" to require a remedy. Case law in existence long before the circuit court addressed the issue presented in this case established that revocation of a driver's license is not a punishment of the offender, but rather, under chapter 322, Florida Statutes, "an administrative remedy for the public protection
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|