Parrot v. City of Tallahassee, FL Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, FL

    I n the

(tart of tip United Staten
October Term, 1964 

No..................

J ohn P arrot and Dennis F lood,

Petitioners,

City of Tallahassee, F lorida.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 

LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

E arl M. J ohnson
625 West Union Street 
Jacksonville, Florida

Jack Greenberg 
Leroy D. Clark 
Derrick A. B ell, Jr.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Petitioners



I N D E X

Citation to Opinions Below  ..................... ........ ~...........  1

Jurisdiction ................................. ..... ................... ..............  2

Questions Presented ------- ---- ------------- --------- —    2

Constitutional Provisions Involved ...............................  3

Statement ......... .... ..... .... ...... ............... .............................. 3

How the Federal Questions Were Raised and Decided 
Below ...........- ........... ...... ................. ............ ........... ..... . 4

Reasons for Granting the Writ ...... ........ ..... .... ............  6

I. The State of Florida has Enforced Racial Dis­
crimination Contrary to the Equal Protection 
and Due Process Clauses of The Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States..............        6

II. The Court Below Arbitrarily Refused to Review
the Federal Questions Raised by Petitioners .... 8

Conclusion................ ....... ......... ....................... ............... . 12

Appendix _________________ _______________ _______ __  la

Order Affirming Municipal Court Judgments .......  la

Order ....        4a

Letter from Counsel for Petitioners to Clerk of 
Circuit Court ..... ................... ..... .... .... .............. . 5a

PAGE



PAGE

ii

Letter from Counsel for Petitioners to the District 
Court of Appeals ............. ....... -....... —....... ----- -----  6a

Letter from Clerk of Circuit Court .......... ................  7a

Order of July 28, 1964 ........ ......... .... ......... .............. . 8a

Table of Cases

Aris v. State, 162 So. 2d 670 ......... ..... .............. — ..........  10
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d

304 ........... ............... ........................ ..........................-.......  9

Epps v. Great Southern Truck Co., 104 So. 2d 43 ....... 10

Helm v. Carter, 160 Fla. 777, 36 So. 2d 808 ........... .......  9

Lambert v. State, 105 So. 2d 612 .... .... ........ ............ .....  10

National Dairy Products Corp. v. Odham, 100 So. 2d
394 ....................... ............ ......... ...... ........... .......... .........  10

Palmer v. Johnson, 97 Fla. 479,121 So. 466 ....... .............  9
Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244 ...............  8

Robinson v. State of Florida, 378 U. S. 153................... 2, 6
Russom v. State, 109 So. 2d 30 ...... ......... ............... ......  10

Virginian R. Co. v. Mullens, 271 TJ. S. 220 ................... 11

Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 So. 2d 262 ............. .............. . 9
Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 375................................. . 11
Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284..... ........................ ........  11



Statutes, Ordinances and R ules

Ordinance of Tallahassee, Florida, Section 23-28 .......  3, 4

Florida Statutes, Section 509.141 ....... ...........................  7

Florida Statutes, Section 821.01 ........ .............. .......... 2, 4, 7

Florida Statutes, Section 59.08 ..... .............. ...... .........  9

Florida Appellate Rule 4.5(c)(1)  ................................  8

Florida Appellate Rule 6.9 ........ ...................................... 9

Florida Administrative Code, c 170C Section 8.06...... . 7

United States Code, Title 28, Section 1257(3) .............  2

I l l

PAGE



Ik t h e

dmtrt of tljr United States
October Term, 1964 

No..................

J ohk P arrot and Dehkis F lood,

Petitioners,

City of Tallahassee, F lorida.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 

LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

Petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review 
the judgment of the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, 
Leon County, Florida entered in the above-entitled case on 
June 15, 1964.

Citations to Opinions Below

The order of the District Court of Appeals, First District, 
State of Florida, dismissing petitioners’ writ of certiorari 
is the final judgment of that court. It is unreported, and is 
set forth in the appendix hereto, infra, p. 4a. The opin­
ion of the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, Leon 
County, Florida, affirming the conviction of petitioners in 
the Municipal Court of Tallahassee, Florida is unreported 
and is set forth in the appendix hereto, infra, pp. la-3a.



2

Jurisdiction

The judgment of the Circuit Court (R. 21-22) was en­
tered on June 15, 1964, infra, pp. la-3a. The Motion for 
Rehearing was denied on July 28, 1964 (R. 27), infra, p. 
8a.

The District Court of Appeals is the final appellate court 
for discretionary review of convictions under a municipal 
ordinance and its order dismissing petitioners’ writ of cer­
tiorari was entered on November 6, 1964 (R. 42), infra, 
p. 4a. Chief Justice Earl Warren, on February 3, 1965, 
granted an application extending the time for filing the 
instant petition for writ of certiorari until March 6, 1965.

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 
Title 28, D. S. C. §1257(3), petitioners having asserted 
below and claiming here deprivation of rights, privileges 
and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United 
States.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioners’ conviction for a “ sit-in” demon­
stration which occurred prior to Robinson v. State of 
Florida, 378 U. S. 153, is a denial of equal protection and 
due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution.

2. Whether affirmance of petitioners’ convictions is based 
on an arbitrary refusal to review federal questions where 
the Circuit Court (from whose judgment the petitioners 
seek a writ of certiorari) ruled against petitioners on the 
merits, but the District Court of Appeals, with its discre­
tionary jurisdiction, dismissed a petition for writ of cer­
tiorari on the ground that no extensions of time could be



3

granted to comply with a non-jurisdictional procedural 
requirement.

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

1. This case involves:

(a) Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States.

(b) Section 821.01 of the Florida Statutes:

Whoever willfully enters into the enclosed land and 
premises of another, or into any private residence, 
house, building or labor camp of another, which is for­
bidden so to enter, or not being previously forbid­
den, is warned to depart therefrom and refuses to 
do so, or having departed re-enters without the pre­
vious consent of the owner, or having departed remains 
about in the vicinity, using profane or indecent lan­
guage, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceed­
ing six months, or by a fine not exceeding one hundred 
dollars.

(c) Section 23-28 of the Ordinances of Tallahassee, Flor­
ida which makes it unlawful for any person:

to commit within the corporate limits of the city, 
any act which is or shall be recognized by the laws of 
the state as a misdemeanor.

Statement

The petitioners, two white students of the Florida State 
University, in the company of three fellow Negro students 
sought service at “ The Mecca” Restaurant in Tallahassee, 
Florida located near their campus (R. 85). The restau­
rant draws most of its business from students at



4

Florida State University but maintained a policy of re­
fusing service to Negro students (R. 57, 60). The owner, 
Mr. Blount, stopped the five students on the steps of the 
restaurant, asked them to leave, and they refused. Mr. 
Blount called a policeman who also requested the students 
to leave (R. 54). The three Negro students began to move 
from the premises but the two petitioners remained. The 
officer called the Negro students back and placed all five 
students under arrest (E. 76). The day previous to the 
arrest, Mr. Blount had asked petitioners to leave the prem­
ises when they offered coffee they had purchased to two 
Negroes who .joined them (R. 84-85). Petitioners had on all 
occasions prior to this date been served without incident in 
the restaurant (R. 89).

Petitioners were tried in the Municipal Court of Talla­
hassee and convicted for violation of §821.01, Florida Stat­
utes (incorporated under municipal ordinance of the City 
of Tallahassee §23-28). They were ordered to pay a fine of 
$100 or serve 30 days in the City Jail (R. 120). Charges 
against the three Negro defendants were dismissed for 
lack of evidence (R. 80-81).

How the Federal Questions Were Raised

After petitioners’ conviction in the Municipal Court, a 
timely notice of appeal was filed to the Circuit Court of 
the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. Ap­
pended thereto were Assignments of Error, specifically ob­
jecting that the convictions were in violation of the equal 
protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment (R. 11-12).

The Circuit Court, after deciding the appeal was prop­
erly lodged there (R. 18-20), disposed adversely of the 
federal constitutional claims on Juno 15, 1964, stating:



“Appellants have argued in their brief only assign­
ments of error 3, 4, and 5. The sole point that has been 
urged is that the arrests and convictions constitute 
‘racially discriminatory state action’ constituting a de­
nial of due process of law and equal protection of the 
law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution.

# *
The point or question thus argued is substantially the 

proposition of whether or not a state statute or munic­
ipal ordinance which punishes for a wilful refusal to 
leave private premises when so requested by the owner 
or his agent, constitutes unconstitutional state action, 
when the motive for the owner’s request to leave in­
volves some racial considerations. The contentions of 
the appellants may not be sustained. The statute and 
ordinance involved are merely to protect against and 
punish wilful and persistent trespasses to private prop­
erty. The owner’s motives in excluding the trespassers 
are immaterial” (R. 21-22).

Petitioners filed a motion for rehearing calling the atten­
tion of the Circuit Court to Robinson v. State of Florida, 
supra, handed down by this Court seven days after the 
decision of the Circuit Court (R. 23-24). Petitioners re­
asserted their claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, and 
noted that the Robinson case voided convictions identical to 
those of petitioners (R. 23-24). The Circuit Court denied 
the motion for rehearing (R. 27).

Petitioners filed a timely petition for writ of certiorari 
to the District Court of Appeals which raised again the 
claims of denial of equal protection of law under the Four­
teenth Amendment (R. 28). The respondent moved to dis­
miss the petition for certiorari on the sole ground that the



G

record which accompanied the petition did not have the 
certification of the clerk of the Circuit Court (R. 43). Peti­
tioners secured the certification of the record, and made ob­
jections on November 3, 1964 to a dismissal of the petition 
for certiorari on the ground that certification of the record 
had been delayed (Appendix, p. 6a). On November 6, 
1964, the District Court of Appeals granted respondent’s 
motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari (R. 42).

Reasons for Granting the Writ

This case involves substantial questions affecting im­
portant constitutional rights, resolved by the court below 
in direct conflict with a recent decision of this Court.

I.

The State of Florida Has Enforced Racial Discrimina­
tion Contrary to the Equal Protection and Due Process 
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

Petitioners’ right to reversal of their convictions on the 
merits could not be clearer. There are no novel or unsettled 
questions of law involved here, but merely the necessity for 
assuring enforcement of the principles announced by this 
Court in Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153.

The facts are simple. Petitioners are two white students 
who while attending Florida State University participated 
with Negro students in a joint attempt to use a racially 
segregated restaurant located near their campus. It was a 
classic “ sit-in,” with petitioners being arrested solely be­
cause the owner refused to serve whites accompanied by 
Negroes.



7

At the time of their arrests and convictions in 1963, the 
Florida Board of Health maintained a regulation which 
required restaurants to provide separate lavatory and toilet 
rooms for white and Negro persons. This was the same 
regulation which occasioned this Court in Robinson, supra, 
to void trespass convictions brought on the complaint of a 
proprietor acting in conformance with the discriminatory 
state policy. The regulation was not repealed until June 23, 
1964, the day after Robinson, supra, was decided.1 The Cir­
cuit Court below was apprised of Robinson, supra, in a mo­
tion for rehearing, but flatly refused to reverse its judg­
ment.

The Robinson case reversed convictions for trespass un­
der §509.141 of the Florida Statutes. The writ should issue 
in this case to clearly state that where the facts are iden­
tical to Robinson convictions under Florida’s other tres­
pass statute (§821.01) must also be reversed. Both statutes 
prohibit trespass and many cases are now pending in which 
both charges have concurrently been made against a single 
act of refusing to leave a segregated restaurant.1 2

Respondent made only two objections on the merits in the 
Circuit Court to the reversal of petitioners’ convictions, 
first, that a defendant must prove that the restaurant in 
which he was arrested actually had racially segregated 
toilet facilities, and secondly, that the owner must in fact 
have made his decision to segregate in reliance on the 
Florida Board of Health regulation. The writ should issue 
to definitively reject the first contention and reaffirm this

1 Prior to repeal— Florida Administrative Code c 170C Section 
8.06.

2 Section 821.01 of the Florida Statutes unlike Section 509.141 
prohibits the use of “profane” or “ indecent language” in the 
vicinity of another’s premises but there was no claim or proof that 
petitioners said or did anything vulgar.



8

Court’s position on the second as stated in Peterson v. City 
of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244 and Robinson, supra.

II.

The Court Below Arbitrarily Refused to Review the 
Federal Questions Raised by Petitioners.

Counsel for petitioners submitted with the petition for 
certiorari a brief and what he thought was a certified record, 
all within the 60 day period as required by Florida Appel­
late Rule 4.5(c)(1). After the 60 day period expired, the 
Clerk of the District Court of Appeals acknowledged the 
timely filing of the petition for certiorari and the brief, but 
returned the record, noting it was in improper form (R. 41). 
Respondent then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground 
that a certified record had not accompanied the petition for 
certiorari. Petitioners returned the record to the Clerk of 
the Circuit Court, who then transmitted it to the Appellate 
Court in certified form.3 Counsel for petitioners objected to 
dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground that 
the certified record was then before the court, the delay 
was due to a misunderstanding by the clerk, and the prose­
cution had not been prejudiced.4

Judge Wallace E. Sturgis of the District Court of Ap­
peals, by order, and without opinion or citation of cases, 
granted respondent’s motion to dismiss.

To secure review on a writ of certiorari, three instru­
ments must be filed—the petition for certiorari, a certified

3 See counsel’s letter, appendix p. 5a.
4 Counsel for petitioners ordered the certified record by telephone. 

The clerk thought he merely requested a copy of all the papers in 
his file. See copies of clerk’s and counsel’s letters, appendix pp. 6a, 
7a.



9

transcript of the proceedings, and a brief. Florida Appel­
late Rule 4.5(c)(1). The only jurisdictional requirement is 
that the petition for certiorari be filed within 60 days. Sec­
tion 59.08, Florida Statutes. Helm v. Carter, 160 Fla. 777, 
36 So. 2d 808.5 Petitioners in the instant case complied with 
that jurisdictional requirement and filed their petition for 
certiorari within the 60 day period.

Petitioners only error was the failure to note that the 
record submitted with the petition for certiorari was un­
certified. This procedural requirement is clearly non-juris- 
dictional and within the discretion of the appellate court 
to permit correction for under Rule 4.5(e)(1), the court 
may dispense with it entirely: “ Unless otherwise ordered 
by the court, it (the petition for certiorari) shall be ac­
companied by a certified transcript of the record of the 
proceedings.” The case law is invariable in holding that 
jurisdictional requirements are not subject to alteration or 
modification by order of a court. Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 
So. 2d 262. In criminal appeals, in general, the time for 
filing a record on appeal may be extended by the appellate 
court, and correction of omissions or errors in the record 
is within the discretion of the lower court or the appellate 
court. Section 924.25, Florida Statutes. Florida Appellate 
Rule 6.9(d).

Most important, many petitioners have been granted ex­
tensions of time to file the certified transcript of the record 
after a petition for certiorari was filed. National D airy

5 One ease, however, which entertained a petition for certiorari 
22 months after a final judgment has said that the court’s authority 
to grant common law certiorari is found in the Florida Constitution 
and, therefore, time limitations cannot be placed on the writ even 
by a statute. Palmer v. Johnson, 97 Fla. 479, 121 So. 466. See 
also dissent in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 
304, 307 finding the 60 day limitation to be merely a court rule 
imposed for efficiency.



1 0

Products Corf. v. Odham, 100 So. 2d 394; Epps v. Great 
Southern Truck Co., 104 So. 2d 43. Indeed, the very judge 
who dismissed petitioners’ writ of certiorari wrote the opin­
ions in Aris v. State, 162 So. 2d 670 and Lambert v. State. 
105 So. 2d 612, the former which notes that an extension of 
time to file a record had been granted to the petitioner, and 
the latter permitted an application for a further extension 
of time to file a record after five extensions had already 
been granted by the trial court.

In Aris v. State, supra, Judge Sturgis does not seem to 
have even required a showing from the petitioner as to the 
cause for the failure to include necessary portions of the 
record with the petition for certiorari. Most appellate 
courts, however, seem to require the applicant for addi­
tional time to make a showing of some reasonable excuse 
for the delay. Russom v. State, 109 So. 2d 30. As regards 
petitioners’ cases, the failure to file the record in certified 
form immediately occurred through a misunderstanding be­
tween counsel for the petitioners and the Clerk of the Cir­
cuit Court, and was corrected without prejudice to the 
respondent. There is no claim here that the uncertified 
record was false in any particular, the respondent’s sole 
objection being that the last page which should have been 
attached to the record as a certification was missing. Fur­
ther, in these particular circumstances, a statute specifically 
provides that failure by a clerk in a criminal case to trans­
mit all. of the appeal papers within the time provided “ shall 
not prejudice the rights of the parties.” Section 924.28, 
Florida Statutes. Therefore, the judge of the District Court 
of Appeals may in fact have had no discretion to deny peti­
tioners the extension of time to file the record. The statute 
has an obvious purpose: a clerk’s derelictions should not 
operate to defeat a defendant seeking review of a criminal 
conviction.



1 1

The order of the District Court of Appeals dismissing 
petitioners’ writ of certiorari was patently discriminatory. 
It conflicts with its prior orders and fails to give peti­
tioners the protection they are entitled to under the statute 
governing errors made by a clerk in transmitting appeal 
papers. A decision so obviously unsupported by state prec­
edent cannot be allowed to arbitrarily foreclose the peti­
tioners’ right to be free from clearly unconstitutional con­
victions. Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 375; Wright v. 
Georgia, 373 U. S. 284. Particularly is this so where peti­
tioners seek a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court and not 
to the District Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court affirmed 
petitioners’ convictions on the merits and not for any 
procedural defects. As the District Court of Appeals has 
refused to exercise its discretion to review, this court re­
views the judgment of the highest court to which appeal 
may be taken as a matter of right. Virginian R. Co. v. Mul­
lens, 271 U. S. 220.

The writ of certiorari should issue in this case to dis­
courage the irresponsible and hostile use of state procedure 
as a bar to dismissal of the many pre-Robinson sit-in con­
victions presently pending in the State of Florida.



1 2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted 
that the writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

E arl M. J ohnson
625 West Union Street 
Jacksonville, Florida

Jack Greenberg 
Leroy D. Clark 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Petitioners



A P P E N D I X



APPENDIX

In the Circuit Court oe the Second Judicial Circuit, 
in and for L eon County, F lorida

No. 10751

J ohn P arrot and Dennis F lood,

-vs.-
Appellants,

City op Tallahassee,
Appellee,

A PPE A L PROM  JU D G M E N T S o f  M U N IC IP A L  COURT OP TALLAH ASSEE

—No. 91335 a n d  No. 91336

Order Affirming Municipal Court Judgments

This cause came on for consideration of the appeal to 
this Court of the judgments and sentences against the ap­
pellants by the Municipal Court of Tallahassee, Florida, 
rendered December 7, 1963, in cases bearing numbers 91335 
and 91336. Oral argument not having been requested, the 
Court has proceeded to consider the case on the record, 
assignments of error and the briefs of the respective par­
ties.

The defendants in the trial court (appellants here) were 
charged with and convicted of an alleged violation of the 
terms of Sec. 821.01, Florida Statutes, which by Sec. 23-28, 
Tallahassee Code, is also made a violation of the ordinances 
of the city.1 The warrant containing the charge alleges

1 See. 23-28 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person “to 
commit within the corporate limits of the city, any act which is 
or shall be recognized by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor” 
and provides for punishment of such violations.



2a

that each of the defendants did, on November 12, 1963 in 
the City of Tallahassee, “ wilfully enter upon the premises 
of 111 South Copeland Street, known as The Mecca, and 
failed and refused to leave said premises when warned by 
the employee occupying and in charge of said premises, 
contrary to Florida Statutes 821.07” .

Appellants have argued in their brief only assignments 
of error 3, 4 and 5. The sole point that has been urged 
is that the arrests and convictions constitute “ racially dis­
criminatory ‘state action’ ” constituting a denial of due 
process of law and equal protection of the law as guar­
anteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution. This Court will consider only the 
question argued, and the assignments of error not argued 
are considered to be abandoned. Thus, questions of suffi­
ciency of the warrant to charge an offense and sufficiency 
of the evidence to support the convictions are not con­
sidered.

The point or question thus argued is substantially the 
proposition of whether or not a state statute or municipal 
ordinance which punishes for a wilful refusal to leave pri­
vate premises when so requested by the owner or his agent, 
constitutes unconstitutional state action, when the motive 
for the owner’s request to leave involves some racial con­
siderations. The contentions of the appellants may not be 
sustained. The statute and ordinance involved are merely 
to protect against and punish wilful and persistent tres­
passes to private property. The owners motives in exclud­
ing the trespassers are immaterial. There is presently or at 
the time of the alleged offenses no statute or other law re­
quiring an owner of private property for restaurant pur­
poses to admit to his premises or to permit to remain any 
person whom he does not wish to be present. No eonstitu-



3a

tional prohibition against such a statute or ordinance or
its enforcement in this case is shown. Accordingly, it is

Ordered and adjudged, that the judgments and sentences 
of the trial court be and the same are, severally, this 15th 
day of June, A. D., 1964,

A ffirmed.

/ s /  Ben C. W illis 
Circuit Judge



4a

Order

I n  the D istrict Court of A ppeal 

F irst D istrict, State of F lorida 

July Term, A. D. 1964 

Case No. Gr-24

John P arrot and Dennis F lood,

— vs.—
Appellants,

City of T allahassee, F lorida,
Appellee.

— — -------------- - ♦ »------ -----------------------

Respondent’s motion to dismiss petition for writ of cer­
tiorari having been considered,

It is ordered that the motion lie granted and this peti­
tion is hereby dismissed.

W itness the Honorable Wallace E. Sturgis, Chief Judge, 
and Seal of the Court this 6th day of November, A. D. 1964.

R aymond E. R hodes, Clerk

B y .......................
Deputy Clerk

A True Copy 

A ttest :

Deputy Clerk, First District Court 
of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida



David Lang, Jr., Esquire 
Post Office Box 726 
Tallaliassee, Florida

5a

October 21,1964

R e : Parrott & Flood vs. City of Tallahassee 
Your Law Case #  10751

Dear Mr. Lang:
Through some misunderstanding we have secured cop­

ies of all papers on file in the above style cause rather than 
a certified transcript of the record such as would be proper 
for submission along with a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. 
Motion to dismiss the petition for Writ of Certiorari has 
been filed. I am endeavoring to apply with the rules by 
now submitting proper certified transcript.

Please certify the enclosed “ Record on Certiorari” and 
transmit same to the District Court of Appeal, First Ap­
pellate District. I will promptly remit your cost in and 
about these services upon receipt of your statement.

Yours truly,

EM J/ma 

Enel.

Earl M. Johnson



6a

November 3,1964

Honorable Wallace E. Sturgis 
Chief Judge, District Court of Appeal 
First Appellate District of Florida 
Supreme Court Building 
Tallahassee, Florida

Dear Judge Sturgis:

This is to advise the Court of my inability to be present 
at the hearing in Parrott, et al. v. City of Tallahassee 
scheduled for November 4,1964.

Our reply to the Motion called up could only be that the 
Appellate Rules do not require, but rather, permit, the dis­
missal of a Certiorari Petition for failure to comply with 
procedural rules. The posture of this case is now such 
that petitioners’ have done all that is required of them to 
secure the review petitioned for, without any resulting 
prejudice to respondent. Of considerable relevance too is 
the importance of the questions involved on the review 
sought.

But for a misunderstanding of telephoned directions to 
the Clerk of the lower court respecting preparation of the 
record for certiorari purposes, all technical procedural re­
quirements would have been met.

I am

Very truly yours,

/ s /  E arl M. J ohnson 

Earl M. Johnson
EM J/ma

cc : Leroy D. Clark, Esquire



7a

P aul F. Hartsfield Clerk of Circuit Court . Leon County

Post Office Box 726 
Tallahassee, Florida

September 16,1964
Mr. Earl Johnson 
625 West Union Street 
Jacksonville, Florida

R e : Parrot & Flood 
vs.
City of Tallahassee 

Your Law Case #10751

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this date, I am 
listing the papers in the above file that you might want 
copied. If you would, please check the papers you want, 
and enclose a check for the total amount ($1.00 per page 
in accordance with Florida Statutes):

Brief of Appellee - .............12 pages
Brief of Appellant ...........14 pages
Transcript of Trial ........... 77 pages
Various other papers .........20 pages

(Please check off the papers wanted on the copy of this 
letter and return with check to cover costs).

Yours very truly,

Paul F. Hartsfield 
Clerk of Circuit Court

by David Lang, Jr. / s/  D. C. 
David, Lang, Jr.

P.S. Regards to Tobie and other militants.

County Auditor . County Recorder . Collector of Delinquent 
Taxes . Clerk of Circuit Court



8a

Order

I n the Circuit Court of the Second J udicial Circuit, 
in and for L eon County, F lorida

No. 10751

J ohn P arrott and Dennis F lood,

Appellants,

City of T allahassee,
Appellee.

The appellants’ motion for rehearing has been duly con­
sidered and is hereby denied and mandate to the trial court 
shall issue.

Ordered and A djuged in Chambers at Tallahassee, 
Florida this 28th day of July, 1964.

/ s /  B en C. W illis 
Circuit Judge



t#