Jollie v. State
405 So. 2d 418 (1981)
Rule of Law:
A district court of appeal's per curiam affirmance that cites as controlling authority a single case that is either pending review in, or has been reversed by, the Florida Supreme Court constitutes prima facie express conflict, which allows the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary review jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Stacy Clyde Jollie was tried for a criminal offense where an issue arose concerning a requested jury instruction.
- A Florida District Court of Appeal, the Fifth District, was simultaneously considering other cases with the identical legal issue.
- The Fifth District issued a decision in one of those cases, Murray v. State, holding that the failure to give the requested instruction was subject to a harmless error analysis.
- Subsequently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily disposed of Jollie's appeal with a per curiam order that stated only: "Affirmed. See Murray v. State."
- At the time Jollie sought review, the Murray decision itself was pending review before the Florida Supreme Court due to a conflict with another case, Tascano v. State.
Procedural Posture:
- Stacy Clyde Jollie was convicted in a Florida trial court.
- Jollie appealed his conviction to the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance of the conviction, citing its own contemporaneous decision in Murray v. State as the sole authority.
- Jollie, the petitioner, filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Florida after the effective date of a 1980 constitutional amendment that limited the court's jurisdiction.
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 jurisdiction to review a district court of appeal's per curiam affirmance that cites as controlling authority a case that is pending review in, or has been reversed by, the Supreme Court, despite a constitutional amendment limiting review to decisions that "expressly and directly" conflict?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A district court of appeal per curiam opinion which cites as controlling authority a decision that is either pending review in or has been reversed by this Court constitutes prima facie express conflict and allows this Court to exercise its jurisdiction. The 1980 constitutional amendment was intended to stop the Court from digging into the record of unexplained per curiam affirmances, as held in Dodi Publishing. However, this situation is distinguishable because the conflict is apparent from the citation itself when the cited case is known by the Supreme Court to be infirm. Common sense dictates that the Court must acknowledge its own public record actions, and it would be an injustice based on random happenstance to deny review to a litigant whose case was summarily decided based on a precedent that this Court ultimately reverses.
Dissenting - Justice Boyd
No. A per curiam affirmance with a citation of authority does not, and under the 1980 amendment to the Florida Constitution cannot, "expressly and directly" conflict with another decision. The plain language and clear intent of the constitutional amendment, as affirmed in Jenkins v. State, was to eliminate the Supreme Court's authority to review decisions rendered without a written opinion explaining the legal reasoning. The majority's decision ignores this mandate, opens a gate the voters intended to close, and undermines the constitutional principle that district courts of appeal are courts of final appellate jurisdiction. The focus must be on whether the decision under review itself creates an express conflict, not whether a case it cites creates one.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the general rule established in cases like Dodi Publishing that the Florida Supreme Court will not review per curiam affirmances without a written opinion. It establishes a jurisdictional foothold for the Court when a lower court's summary decision rests entirely on a single precedent that is itself under review or has been overturned. The ruling balances the 1980 constitutional amendment's goal of limiting the Court's docket with the Court's inherent duty to ensure uniformity in the law and prevent the perpetuation of known legal errors through procedural shortcuts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Jollie v. State (1981)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"