Jenkins v. State
385 So. 2d 1356 (1980)
Rule of Law:
Under the 1980 amendment to the Florida Constitution, the Supreme Court of Florida lacks jurisdiction to review a per curiam decision of a district court of appeal rendered without a majority opinion, even if accompanied by a dissent, because such a decision does not 'expressly and directly conflict' with another decision.
Facts:
- Philip H. Jenkins' vehicle was subjected to a warrantless search by law enforcement.
- The basis for the search was uncorroborated hearsay information provided by a confidential informant.
- The confidential informant had not divulged the source of the information provided to law enforcement.
- As a result of the search, evidence was seized from Jenkins' vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- In the trial court, Philip H. Jenkins filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Jenkins entered a plea of nolo contendere, preserving his right to appeal the trial court's ruling on his motion.
- Jenkins, as appellant, appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling with a 'Per Curiam Affirmed' decision, which did not include a majority opinion.
- One judge on the panel issued a comprehensive dissenting opinion.
- Jenkins, as petitioner, filed a notice to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida, asserting the appellate decision conflicted with other Florida court decisions.
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 1980 amendment to Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, which requires a district court of appeal decision to 'expressly and directly conflict' with another decision for review, eliminate the Supreme Court of Florida's jurisdiction to review a per curiam affirmance that lacks a majority opinion, even when accompanied by a dissenting opinion?
Opinions:
Majority - Sundberg, J.
No. The 1980 constitutional amendment eliminates the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review per curiam affirmances without a majority opinion for conflict purposes. The amendment requires a decision to 'expressly and directly conflict' with another. A simple 'Per Curiam Affirmed' does not 'express' a rule of law, and the language of a dissenting or concurring opinion is not the 'decision' of the court. The court's jurisdiction for review by certiorari must be based on a conflict of decisions, not a conflict of opinions or reasons. This new constitutional language was intentionally adopted to reduce the court's caseload and restore the district courts of appeal as courts of final appellate jurisdiction, thereby overruling prior precedents like Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., which allowed the court to find conflict by looking at the record or a dissent.
Concurring - England, C.J.
No. The amendment eliminates this basis for jurisdiction. A detailed review of the history behind the 1980 amendment confirms that its drafters, the legislature, and the voters intended to eliminate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over per curiam affirmances without opinion. The public debate and reform efforts were centered on reducing the court's caseload and making district court decisions final in most instances. This specific change, overruling the line of cases that allowed review of such decisions, was a central theme of the successful campaign for the amendment's passage.
Dissenting - Adkins, J.
Yes. The Supreme Court should retain jurisdiction to review these decisions. This holding abdicates the Court's primary responsibility to keep the law harmonious and uniform throughout the state. By refusing to review these cases, the Court allows different rules of law to exist in different appellate districts, creating 'utter chaos' for trial judges and litigants. A dissenting opinion is an integral part of the court's decision-making process that provides guidance, and ignoring it prevents the Court from resolving clear conflicts in the law. A heavy caseload does not justify spawning confusion in the judicial system.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally reshaped appellate practice in Florida by strictly interpreting the new jurisdictional limits of the state's highest court. It effectively ended the practice of using a detailed dissent as a basis for Supreme Court review in cases where the majority issued a simple per curiam affirmance without opinion. This holding solidified the role of the District Courts of Appeal as the final arbiters for the vast majority of cases. As a practical matter, it forces appellate judges who want a case reviewed by the Supreme Court to either write a majority opinion creating an 'express' conflict or certify a question of great public importance.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Jenkins v. State (1980)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"