Payret v. Adams
500 So. 2d 136 (1986)
Rule of Law:
A county judge may not be assigned to perform circuit court duties indefinitely or on a de facto permanent basis, as such an assignment circumvents the constitutional requirements for the election or gubernatorial appointment of circuit judges.
Facts:
- The chief judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit issued administrative orders creating the Glades jury district within Palm Beach County.
- Another administrative order provided a blanket authorization for county court judges to be assigned to decide circuit court cases for one-year periods.
- Pursuant to this order, Don T. Adams, a Palm Beach County Court judge, was assigned to be the acting circuit court judge for the Glades district.
- Judge Adams' assignment was renewed annually for five consecutive years.
- During this period, Judge Adams was assigned to hear all circuit court matters in the Glades district, and he acknowledged that for all practical purposes, he was the circuit judge for that district.
- Manuel Esteban Payret was charged by information with a felony that allegedly occurred within the Glades district.
- Payret's felony case was set for trial before Judge Adams, who was acting as a circuit judge.
Procedural Posture:
- Manuel Esteban Payret was charged with a felony in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.
- The case was assigned for trial before Judge Don T. Adams, a county judge acting as a circuit judge.
- Payret filed a motion in the trial court to transfer the case, challenging the validity of Judge Adams' long-term assignment.
- The acting trial judge, Adams, denied Payret's motion.
- Payret, as petitioner, sought a writ of prohibition from the Fourth District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) to prevent Judge Adams from presiding over his case.
- The District Court of Appeal denied the petition but certified a question of great public importance to 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 indefinite, multi-year assignment of a county judge to perform all circuit court duties within a specially created jury district violate the Florida Constitution's provisions for temporary judicial assignments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ehrlich
No. The indefinite assignment of a county judge to perform circuit court duties is not a valid temporary assignment and violates the Florida Constitution. While chief judges have the authority to make temporary assignments of county judges to circuit court, these assignments must be genuinely temporary. An assignment renewed annually for five years, where the county judge supplants rather than supplements circuit judges by hearing all circuit court matters in a district, is a de facto permanent assignment. This practice circumvents the constitutional mandates that circuit judges be selected either by election (Article V, § 10(b)) or by gubernatorial appointment to fill a vacancy (Article V, § 11(b)). The court cannot ignore the permanent nature of the assignment for reasons of administrative convenience.
Dissenting - Justice Overton
Yes, provided the county judge retains his or her county court duties. The majority's decision is contrary to the intent of the Florida Constitution to allow for the efficient utilization of judicial manpower and effectively overrules precedent set in State ex rel. Treadwell v. Hall. This holding will negatively impact judicial administration in rural counties by requiring circuit judges to travel or by preventing qualified local county judges from handling circuit matters. An assignment should be considered 'temporary' so long as the county judge is not relieved of their county court jurisdiction, which is consistent with prior case law. This restriction is poor administrative policy and goes against the goal of fully utilizing the state's judicial resources.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of 'temporary' judicial assignments as discussed in Crusoe v. Rowls, establishing that the substance of an assignment, not merely its form, determines its validity. The court holds that serial, one-year assignments that collectively function as a permanent post are unconstitutional. This ruling curtails the administrative flexibility of chief judges in managing judicial resources, particularly in circuits that rely on county judges to cover dockets in geographically large or rural areas. The case reinforces the primacy of the constitutional methods for selecting circuit judges (election and appointment) over administrative workarounds, ensuring that judges exercising circuit court jurisdiction are chosen as mandated by the constitution.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Payret v. Adams (1986)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"