Case Name: Perry Acree v. State
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1933-11-07
Citations: 111 Fla. 494
Docket Number: 
Parties: Perry Acree v. State
Judges: Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Ellis, Terrell, and Brown,. J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 494–500

Head Matter:
Perry Acree v. State
149 So. 15, 576.
150 So. 717.
En Banc.
Order Filed July 18, 1933.
Opinion Filed Nov. 7, 1933.
Martin ¿r Martin, for Plaintiff in Error;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and Roy Ca^npbell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Buford, J.
The purported transcript of record lodged in this Coubt is in such condition that the Court cannot properly assume to determine the merits of the case.
We would be warranted in entering an order summarily dismissing the same, but on account of the fact that the plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy and was sentenced to be electrocuted, we are inclined to pursue a different course.
There appears to have been no attempt to comply with Rule 103, nor with Special Rule 3, for the government of Circuit Courts. The record contains many pages of photo static copies, which violate the rules in that they present the reading matter in white on blank background, while the rule requires that if photostatic copies are used at all they must be in black on white background. Three of what purports to be copies of the ¡writ of error are found in the record. One is with the transcript of the record proper and two in the purported bill of exceptions, neither of which is certified. Much of the suggestion (we cannot call it evidence, because it is not authenticated) of what transpired in pais is placed before us in the form of wha.t appears to be copies of some motions, affidavits and exhibits, but they are in no way authenticated or identified so as to be of .any value to this Court. What is probably intended to present the bill of exceptions apppears to be the original transcript of the testimony and some of the proceedings had at the trial which was presented to the trial judge to become a bill of exceptions. This document indicates that it is an original document and should be now on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court 'of Polk County. This document does not contain the introductory certificate required to authenticate and identify it as a bill of exceptions.
For the reasons stated, the plaintiff in error will be allojwed, if he wishes to do so, to withdraw the original records, which should be on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Polk County, and to return the same to the files of that court and within thirty days after the date of the filing of this order to file in this Court an amended transcript of the record prepared in such a manner as to conform to the rules of the Circuit Court and to the rules of this Court pertaining to such matters and, if the same is not done, this cause shall and will at the expiration of sixty days from the date of the filing of this order stand dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Ellis, Terrell, and Brown,. J. J., concur.
Per Curiam,
Perry Aeree was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. The crime for which he was indicted was the killing of a police officer of the City of Lakeland on March 27, 1932. Aeree, together with one Joseph E. Johnston and his mother, Annie Aeree, were jointly charged with the murder of officer W. T. Barnett. In a separate case growing out of the same tragedy, Joseph E. Johnston was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death for the killing of officer T. A. Nicholson on the same day and at the same time officer W. T. Barnett was killed.
The facts and circumstances of both homicides are set forth in the opinion of this Court filed in the case of Joseph E. Johnston v. State (opinion filed October 3, 1933), where this Court reversed the judgment against Johnston and awarded him a new trial because of the trial court's denial of a motion for change of venue. The same identical point of law, and the same facts and circumstances that were relied on in the Johnston case as grounds for a change of venue, were relied on and shown in this case, save and except the fact that Aeree plead not guilty and was tried and found guilty by a jury, whereas Johnston was sentenced on a plea of guilty.
For the reasons given in the opinion in the case of Johnston v. State, supra, the judgment in this case is likewise reversed and a new trial awarded, because the trial court's erroneous denial of Acree's motion for change of venue.
Reversed and remanded.
Davis, C: J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J.J., concur.