Case File
efta-efta01114871DOJ Data Set 9OtherPayret v. Adams, 500 So.2d 136 (1986)
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01114871
Pages
3
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Payret v. Adams, 500 So.2d 136 (1986)
12 Fla. L. Weekly 13
Atty. of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, amicus curiae.
500 So.2d 1,36
Supreme Court of Florida.
Manuel Esteban PAYRET, Petitioner,
v.
The Honorable Don T. ADAMS, As Acting Circuit
Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida,
Respondent.
No. 67739. I Dec. 24, 1986.
Petition was filed for writ of prohibition from the Circuit
Court, Palm Beach County, alleging that county judge
was without jurisdiction to act as circuit court judge. The
District Court of Appeal, 475 So.2d 300, certified a
question. The Supreme Court, Ehrlich, J., held that county
judge could not be indefinitely assigned circuit court
duties in specially created jury district.
Question answered in negative.
Overton, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which
McDonald, C.J., concurred.
West Headnotes (I)
1
Courts
4$,Designation or Assignment of Judges
County judge could not be indefinitely assigned
circuit court duties in specially created jury
district given constitutional article mandating
that circuit court judges be elected by vote of
qualified electors within territorial jurisdiction of
court and article providing that when vacancy on
circuit court occurs, governor shall appoint
judge to fill that vacancy. West's F.S.A. Const.
Art. 5, §§ 10(b), 11(b).
13 Cases that cite this headnote
Attorneys and Law Firms
*137 Nelson E. Bailey, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty.
Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
David H. Bludworth, State Atty., and Maureen H.
Ackerman, Asst. State Atty., West Palm Beach, for State
Opinion
EHRLICH, Justice.
We have for our review Payret v. Adams, 475 So.2d 300
(Fla. 4th DCA 1985), wherein the district court certified
the following question of great public importance:
MAY A COUNTY JUDGE BE INDEFINITELY
ASSIGNED CIRCUIT COURT DUTIES IN A
SPECIALLY CREATED JURY DISTRICT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT?
We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida
Constitution, and answer the question in the negative.
In order to understand the procedural history of this case
and our treatment of the certified question, the current
system of trying criminal cases in the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit must be examined. Of particular importance are
three administrative orders issued by the chief judge of
that circuit. The Glades Courthouse Annex, located in
Belle Glade, is an official courthouse facility of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County.
By Administrative Order 1.004, all circuit and county
court matters may be heard at the Glades annex, which
geographically encompasses that section of Palm Beach
County lying west of a north-south line at 20-Mile Bend.
Administrative Order 1.006, enacted pursuant to the
authority granted the chief judge of a judicial circuit by
section 40.015, Florida Statutes (1985), created the
Glades jury district. Under this administrative order,
where the situs of an alleged felony is within the Glades
district, a felony-charged defendant may request a jury
trial at the Glades annex before a jury drawn from the
Glades jury district; a defendant who does not so request
is tried at the main courthouse in West Palm Beach before
a jury drawn from the eastern district. Administrative
Order 1.003 represents a blanket authorization from the
chief judge for county court judges to decide circuit court
cases; assignments entered pursuant to this administrative
order are for a full one-year period. This order further
provides that in cases other than those in which the county
court has exclusive jurisdiction, upon good cause shown a
party may have a case transferred to an appropriate
division of the circuit court.
Respondent is a county court judge in Palm Beach
County. Pursuant to Administrative Order
1.003,
respondent has been annually reassigned for the past five
years to be the acting circuit court judge for the Glades
WestlawNex! © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
EFTA01114871
Payret v. Adams, 500 So.2d 136 (1986)
12 Fla. L. Weekly 13
district. Respondent has acknowledged that for all
practical purposes, he is the circuit judge for the Glades
district.
The petitioner was charged by information with a felony
and the case was set for trial before the respondent, acting
as circuit judge, at the Glades annex. Respondent denied
petitioner's motion to transfer the case to an appropriate
division of the circuit court"
*138 Following this denial, petitioner sought a writ of
prohibition from the Fourth District Court of Appeal,
alleging that respondent was without jurisdiction to act as
a circuit court judge. The district court denied the petition
stating that this Court's decision in Crusoe v. Rowls, 472
So.2d 1163 (Fla.1985), and ow reaffirmance of State a
rel. Treadwell v. Hall, 274 So.2d 537 (Fla.1973), in
Crusoe foreclosed the district court from acting. While we
understand the district court's reluctance, we feel it has
read Crusoe and Treadwell too broadly.
The sole issue before us sub judice is the temporal nature
of respondent's assignment. The issue before us in
Treadwell was whether the chief judge of a judicial circuit
was authorized to assign duties to a county court judge
which, under our constitution, are in the exclusive
jurisdiction of the circuit court. 274 So.2d at 538. The
extent of our holding in Treadwell was that those county
court judges who met the qualifications for being a circuit
judge under article V, section 8, were qualified to be
assigned as temporary circuit judges. Id. at 539. The
assignment in Treadwell stated that it was to be effective
"until further order," id. at 538, and it is this language on
which both respondent and amicus rely in support of their
position that the assignment sub judice is temporary and
more limited than the assignment we approved in
Treadwell. Judging from the phrasing of the district
court's opinion below, it was evidently this same
open-ended language which that court found to be
controlling.
In Crusoe, however, we explicitly stated that, "what
temporary circuit judges" meant was not discussed or
defined in Treadwell. 472 So.2d at 1165. In Crusoe we
explained:
"Temporary" is an antonym for "permanent." It is a
comparative term. It can be said that if a duty is not
permanent it is temporary. If a county judge is assigned
to perform solely circuit court work, the assignment
must be for a relatively short time for it to be
temporary. If a county judge is assigned to spend a
portion of his time performing circuit work, the
assignment can be longer, but the assignment cannot
usurp, supplant, or effectively deprive circuit court
jurisdiction of a particular type of case on a permanent
basis.
Id. (footnotes omitted). We suggested that when a county
court judge is assigned to do solely circuit court work, the
assignment, in order to be temporary, should be for no
more than sixty days; when a county court judge is
assigned to spend only a portion of his time doing circuit
court work, we suggested no more than six months.
We suggested these time periods because we recognized
the need for giving the chief judges flexibility in order for
them to effectively utilize available judicial labor, and we
liberally construed the assignments in Crusoe with this in
mind. Id. at 1166.
Factually, Crusoe dealt with successive and repetitive
assignments of county court judges assigned to hear a
limited class of support orders. We found these
assignments valid as the county judges were assigned "to
supplement and aid the circuit judges rather than to
replace them." Id. at 1165. The facts sub judice stand in
stark contrast. Respondent's assignment has been
successive and repetitive, having been renewed annually
for the last five years. Rather than being assigned to aid or
assist the circuit judges in a limited class of cases,
respondent has been assigned to hear all circuit court
matters in the Glades district. Indeed, respondent has
conceded that for all intents and purposes, he is the circuit
judge for the Glades district. Respondent and amicus
argue that the assignment at issue is a valid temporary
assignment as, facially, it is only for a one year period.
We cannot simply close our eyes to the de facto
permanency of respondent's assignment, and no exercise
in liberal construction of the administrative order before
us can transform this permanent assignment into a valid
temporary one; such a result could only be accomplished
by legerdemain.
Respondent and amicus have presented us with various
reasons supporting the creation of the Glades annex and
the Glades *139 jury district, and have stressed the
convenience to the citizens of western Palm Beach
County in having respondent assigned as the circuit judge
for that locale. The only issue before us today is the
validity of respondent's assignment, and constitutional
provisions cannot be ignored for reasons of convenience.
Article V, section 10(b), mandates that circuit judges shall
be elected by vote of the qualified electors within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Article V, section
11(b), provides that when a vacancy on a circuit court
occurs, the governor shall appoint a judge to fill that
vacancy. Respondent has become a permanent circuit
judge not by the method mandated by the constitution, but
by administrative order. This cannot be done.
Therefore, we answer the certified question in the
negative, quash the decision of the district court and
remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WestlawNext © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
EFTA01114872
Payret v. Adams, 500 So.2d 136 (1986)
12 Fla. L. Weekly 13
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which
McDONALD, C.J., concurs.
OVERTON, Justice, dissenting.
The majority's decision will substantially impact on the
efficient utilization of Florida's judicial manpower and is
contrary to the intent and purpose of article V, section 2,
of the Florida Constitution. The basic circumstances in
State er reL Treadwell v. Hall, 274 So.2d 537 (Fla.1973),
are identical to those in the instant case. In Treadwell, we
approved assigning DeSoto County's county court judge
to circuit court work in that county. That record reflected
that the county court judge had ample time to fulfill both
county court and circuit court responsibilities. The
majority decision effectively overrules Treadwell by
restricting the use of county court judges as circuit judges
in rural and semi-rural counties. Further, the majority
decision will require either (1) that circuit judges travel to
counties where there are no resident circuit judges or (2)
that qualified county court judges from other counties
within the circuit periodically exchange counties to do
circuit court work. As a result, judicial time will be lost in
travel and other available judicial time from county court
judges will be totally lost. In my view, this is poor
administrative policy and clearly contrary to the intent of
article V, section 2, of Florida's constitution.
The majority answers the certified question in the
negative. I would answer the question in the affirmative
provided the county court judge retains his or her county
court duties. I agree with the majority, however, that a
county court judge could not indefinitely be assigned
exclusively to circuit court work. Consistent with
Treadwell, I would consider the order "temporary" when
the phrase "until further order of the court" is used and
the judge is not relieved of county court jurisdiction.
In view of the majority's decision, article V should be
amended to allow Florida to fully utilize its present
judicial manpower.
McDONALD, C.J., concurs.
Parallel Citations
12 Fla. L. Weekly 13
Footnotes
The petitioner's motion was made pursuant to Administrative Order 1.003, which allows transfer for good cause shown.
Petitioner's good cause argument was premised on the validity of respondent's nontemporary assignment as circuit court judge.
End of Document
C 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WestlawNext © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
EFTA01114873
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Wire Ref
reflectedForum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.