Jackson v. State
2006 WL 797659, 926 So.2d 1262 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Florida Supreme Court lacks mandatory review jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution over a district court of appeal's unelaborated per curiam decision, as such a decision does not constitute a 'declaration' that a state statute or constitutional provision is invalid.
Facts:
- Isiah Jackson was convicted of several crimes and sought to file a belated appeal, claiming his attorney failed to file a timely appeal as requested.
- After a special master determined Jackson's right to appeal had not been compromised, the First District Court of Appeal denied his petition in an unpublished order stating only, 'The petition seeking belated appeal is denied on the merits.'
- Daly Braxton was convicted of burglary with assault and dealing in stolen property and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender.
- Braxton argued his sentence was illegal, asserting he should have been convicted under a different statute for burglary with a firearm, which would have made him ineligible for habitual offender status.
- A trial court denied Braxton's motion to correct his sentence.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Braxton's motion with a decision stating only 'Per Curiam Affirmed.'
- Both Jackson and Braxton argued that the First District's unelaborated decisions inherently invalidated various Florida statutes and constitutional provisions concerning the right to appeal and sentencing.
Procedural Posture:
- Isiah Jackson filed a petition for a belated appeal in the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District relinquished jurisdiction, and a trial court-appointed special master found against Jackson.
- The First District Court of Appeal denied Jackson's petition based on the master's findings.
- Daly Braxton filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court, which was denied.
- Braxton, as appellant, appealed the denial to the First District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's order.
- Jackson and Braxton, as appellants, then sought to invoke the mandatory review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida Supreme Court have mandatory review jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution over a district court of appeal's unelaborated per curiam decision that affirms a trial court ruling, where the appellant claims the decision inherently declares a state statute or constitutional provision invalid?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The Florida Supreme Court does not have mandatory jurisdiction over unelaborated per curiam decisions from a district court of appeal. The Court reasoned that Article V, Section 3(b)(1) requires a 'declaration' of invalidity, and a decision without a written opinion does not 'declare' anything. Extending its long-standing precedent from the discretionary review context, established in Jenkins v. State, the Court held that a silent affirmance is insufficient to invoke jurisdiction. This interpretation aligns with the design of Florida's judicial system, where district courts of appeal are intended to be the final arbiters for most cases, preserving the Supreme Court's role for settling issues of public importance and preserving legal uniformity.
Concurring - Lewis, J.
Concurred in result only, without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes a bright-line jurisdictional rule for the Florida Supreme Court, closing a potential loophole for mandatory review. By extending the logic of Jenkins v. State from discretionary to mandatory jurisdiction, the Court reinforces the finality of district court of appeal (DCA) decisions and conserves its own judicial resources. The ruling prevents litigants from manufacturing jurisdiction by arguing that a DCA's silent affirmance implicitly or inherently invalidated a statute. This solidifies the role of DCAs as the primary courts of final appeal in Florida and requires an explicit, written declaration of invalidity to trigger the Supreme Court's mandatory review.
