Parrot v. City of Tallahassee, FL Respondent's Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

    IN THE

jSupmite Court of 
Cite Pntfeft flutes

OCTOBER TERM, 1965

JOHN PARROT and DENNIS FLOOD,
Petitioners,

-v-

GITY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ROY T. RHODES
1021 /2  South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida

EDW. J. HILL
107 Midyette-Moor Building
Tallahassee, Florida

Counsel for Respondent



IN THE

JSupmtte Court of 
®! t  |Moxhb jiiairs

OCTOBER TERM, 1965

NO.

JOHN PARROT and DENNIS FLOOD,
Petitioners,

-v-

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI



TOPICAL INDEX TO BRIEF

PAGE
JURISDICTION ......................................................................  1

STATUTES, ORDINANCES and CASES INVOLVED 1 

ARGUMENT ..........................................................................  2

CONCLUSION 3



TABLE OF CITATIONS

STATUTES, ORDINANCES and CASES
PAGE

Sec. 821.01, Florida Statutes, 1963 ....................................  1

City of Tallahassee Code
Sec. 23-28 ...................................................................... 1-2

28 U.S.C.A., §1257 ................................................................ 1

Armstrong v. City of Tampa
(Fla. 1958) 106 So.2d 407 ........................................... 2

Dresner v. City of Tallahassee
(Fla. 1961) 134 So.2d 228 ........................................... 2

Dresner v. City of Tallahassee
(Fla. 1964) 164 So.2d 208 ........................................... 2

State ex rel McFarland
(Fla. 1954) 74 So.2d 88 ..............................................  2

U. S. v. Johnston
268 U.S. 220,227 ............................................................ 3

375 U.S. 136 ..........................................................................  2

378 U.S. 539 3



1

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by Petitioners 
under 28 U.S.C.A., § 1257. Respondent respectfully quotes 
the appropriate clause therefrom:

“ Final judgments or decrees rendered by the 
highest court of a state in which a decision could
be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court 
as follows:”  (Emphasis added)

STATUTES AND ORDINANCES INVOLVED

It is not conceded that Section 821.01, Florida 
Statutes, is properly quoted in Petitioners’ brief, page 3, 
thereof. Section 821.01, Florida Statutes, 1963, correctly 
reads:

“ Whoever willfully enters into the enclosed land 
and premises of another, or into any private resi­
dence, house, building or labor camp of another, 
which is occupied by the owner or his employees, 
being forbidden so to enter, or not being previ­
ously forbidden, is warned to depart therefrom 
and refuses to do so, or having departed re-enters 
without the previous consent of the owner, or 
having departed remains about in the vicinity, 
using profane or indecent language, shall be pun­
ished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, 
or by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars,”

Also, it is not conceded that Section 23-28 of the City 
of Tallahassee Code is properly quoted. Respondent as­
sumes petitioners were referring to Section 23-38 of the 
Code which says, in part:

“ 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 the commission 
of such acts is hereby forbidden.”

It is settled law that municipalities of Florida may 
adopt state misdemeanor statutes under their codes, and 
when so adopted the violation thereof becomes the viola­
tion of a city ordinance. State ex rel McFarland (Fla.



2

1954), 74 So.2d 88; Armstrong v. City of Tampa, (Fla. 
1958), 106 So.2d 407; Israel Dresner et als, Appellants, 
v. City of Tallahassee, Appellee (Fla. 1961) 134 So.2d 
228.

ARGUMENT

Respondent calls to the attention of this Court the 
second paragraph under the heading of “ Jurisdiction,” 
Page 2, of petitioners’ brief in support of their Petition 
for Writ of Certiorari, which says, inter alia:

“ The District Court of Appeals is the final ap­
pellate court for discretionary review of convic­
tions under a municipal ordinance*****” .

The question of the exhaustion of state remedies 
and writs of certiorari to the courts of Florida by this 
Court, seems to have been fully answered in the case of 
Israel Dresner et als, Petitioners, vs. City of Tallahassee, 
Respondent (Fla. 1964) 164 So.2d 208. In that case this 
Court had certified certain questions of review jurisdic­
tion to the Supreme Court of Florida; see 375 U.S. 136.

Respondent holds and urges that pursuant to Dresner 
(Fla. 1964) 164 So.2d 208, this Court accepted the an­
swers to its certified questions, and thereupon in it per 
curiam opinion dated June 22, 1964, dismissed Dresner’s 
petition for certiorari as improvidently granted; see 378 
U.S. 539.

Similarly herein petitioners have not exhausted their 
state remedies as was the jurisdictional question in Dresner.

Aside from the errors pointed up in petitioners’ brief, 
as well as no certificate of service pursuant to the rules 
of this court, and the lack of merit to their argument, all 
decision of the lower courts are correct and there is no 
basis for further review. As this Court stated in U. St vs. 
Johnston, 268 U.S. 220,227:

“ We do not grant a certiorari to review evidence
and discuss specific facts.”



3

CONCLUSION

It is respectfully submitted that all decisions in this 
cause below are correct. Petitioners have slept on their 
rights by refusing to avail themselves of their state rem­
edies and there is no basis for further review. Therefore, 
certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted:

1021/2 South Monroe Street 
Tallahassee, Florida

107 Midyette-Moor Building 
Tallahassee, Florida

Attorneys for Respondent



4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing respon­
dent’s brief in opposition to petition for certiorari has, 
pursuant to Rule 33 (1) of the Revised Rules of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, has been served by 
airmail upon Earl M. Johnson, 625 West Union Street, 
Jacksonville, Florida, and Jack Greenberg, Leroy D. Clark, 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr., 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New 
York, attorneys for petitioners.