Payret v. AdamsPayret v. Adams
MAY A COUNTY JUDGE BE INDEFINITELY ASSIGNED CIRCUIT COURT DUTIES IN A SPECIALLY CREATED JURY DISTRICT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT?
We have jurisdiction,
In order to understand the procedural history of this case and our treatment of the certified question, the current system of trying сriminal cases in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit must be examined. Of particular importance are three administrative orders issued by the chief judge of that circuit. The Glades Courthouse Annеx, located in Belle Glade, is an official courthouse facility of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County. By Administrative Order 1.004, all circuit and county court matters may be heard at the Glades annex, which geographically encompasses that section of Palm Beach County lying west of a north-south line at 20-Mile Bend. Administrative Order 1.006, enacted pursuant to the authority granted the chief judge of a judicial circuit by
Respondent is a cоunty court judge in Palm Beach County. Pursuant to Administrative Order 1.003, respondent has been annually reassigned for the past five years to be the acting circuit court judge for the Glades district. Rеspondent has acknowledged that for all practical purposes, he is the circuit judge for the Glades district.
The petitioner was charged by information with a felony and the case was set for trial befоre the respondent, acting as circuit judge, at the Glades annex. Respondent denied petitioner‘s motion to transfer the case to an appropriate division of the circuit court.*
The sole issue before us sub judice is the temporal nature of respondent‘s assignment. The issue before us in Treadwell was whether the chief judge of a judicial circuit was authorized to assign duties to a county court judge which, under our constitution, are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court. 274 So.2d at 538. The extent of our holding in Treadwell was that those county court judges who met the qualifications for being a circuit judge under
In Crusoe, however, we explicitly stated that, “what temporary circuit judges” meant was not discussed or defined in Treadwell. 472 So.2d at 1165. In Crusoe we explained:
“Temporary” is an antonym for “permanent.” It is a comparative term. It can be said that if a duty is not permanent it is temporary. If a county judge is assigned to perform solely circuit court work, the assignment must be for a relatively shоrt time for it to be temporary. If a county judge is assigned to spend a portion of his time performing circuit work, the assignment can be longer, but the assignment cannot usurp, supplant, оr effectively deprive circuit court jurisdiction of a particular type of case on a permanent basis.
Id. (footnotes omitted). We suggested that when a county court judge is assigned to do solely circuit court work, the assignment, in order to be temporary, should be for no more than sixty days; when a county court judge is assigned to spend only a portion of his time doing circuit court work, we suggested no more than six months.
We suggested these time periods because we recognized the need for giving the chief judges flexibility in order for them to effeсtively utilize available judicial labor, and we liberally construed the assignments in Crusoe with this in mind. Id. at 1166.
Factually, Crusoe dealt with successive and repetitive assignments of county court judges assigned to hear a limited class of support orders. We found these assignments valid as the county judges were assigned “to supplement and aid the circuit judges rather than to replace them.” Id. at 1165. The facts sub judice stand in stark contrast. Respondent‘s assignment has been successive and repetitive, having been renewed annually for the last five years. Rather than being assigned to aid or assist the circuit judges in a limited class of cases, respondent has been assigned to hear all circuit court matters in the Glades district. Indeed, respondent has conceded that fоr all intents and purposes, he is the circuit judge for the Glades district. Respondent and amicus argue that the assignment at issue is a valid temporary assignment as, facially, it is only for a one year period. We cannot simply close our eyes to the de facto permanency of respondent‘s assignment, and no exercise in liberal construction of the administrativе order before us can transform this permanent assignment into a valid temporary one; such a result could only be accomplished by legerdemain.
Respondent and amiсus have presented us with various reasons supporting the creation of the Glades annex and the Glades
Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the decision of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which McDONALD, C.J., concurs.
OVERTON, Justice, dissenting.
The majority‘s decision will substantially impact on the еfficient utilization of Florida‘s judicial manpower and is contrary to the intent and purpose of
The majority answers the certified question in the negative. I would answer the question in the affirmative provided the county court judge retains his or her county court duties. I agree with the majority, however, that a county court judge could not indefinitely be assigned exclusively to circuit court work. Consistent with Treadwell, I would consider the order “temporary” when the phrase “until further order of the court” is used and the judge is not relieved of county court jurisdiction.
In view of the majority‘s decision,
McDONALD, C.J., concurs.