From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Buchanan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 5, 1966
190 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Opinion

No. 65-1002.

October 5, 1966.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Francis X. Knuck, J.

Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and John P. Durant, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.

Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.


The appellant was arrested and charged with drunk driving in the City of Miami, under a traffic ordinance of Metropolitan Dade County which had superseded the city's traffic ordinance for such offense. He sought release on a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. On hearing, the writ was discharged and the petitioner was remanded to the custody of the respondent sheriff.

Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla. 1959, 108 So.2d 468.

Petitioner appealed, contending the ordinance is invalid for insufficiency in its title and because the minimum penalty provided therein is more than the minimum penalty provided in the state law governing such an offense. We hold appellant's contentions are without merit and affirm. The ordinance is valid under the requirements of title and notice, as set out in § 1.02(b) of the Metro Charter. See 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 415; 37 Am.Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 146. The penalties prescribed in the ordinance were within the authority therefor as granted in § 6.15(B) of the Metro Charter. The fact that the penalty prescribed in the ordinance fixed a minimum higher than the minimum specified in the State law relating to such an offense did not bring the ordinance in conflict with applicable state law within the meaning of the prohibition against such conflicts as contained in subsection (5) of section 11 of Article VIII of the Constitution, F.S.A., the home rule amendment. The conflict provision did not require that the state and Metro penalties be identical.

"Every ordinance shall be introduced in writing and shall contain a brief title. The enacting clause shall be `Be it Ordained by the Board.' After passage on first reading, a short summary of the ordinance shall be published in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once together with a notice of the time when and place where it will be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The first such publication shall be at least one week prior to the time advertised for hearing. No ordinance shall be declared invalid by reason of any defect in publication or title if the published summary gives reasonable notice of its intent."

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Buchanan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 5, 1966
190 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Case details for

State v. Buchanan

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. VERLE GAYLORD LEHMAN, APPELLANT, v. T.A…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 5, 1966

Citations

190 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Citing Cases

Metropolitan Dade County v. City of Miami

Such cases are not controlling in the instant case, however, because we hold that the ordinance in question…