Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. Jack M. TURNER, Relator, v. Richard T. EARLE, Jr., Chairman, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-02-27
Citations: 295 So. 2d 609
Docket Number: No. 44339
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. Jack M. TURNER, Relator, v. Richard T. EARLE, Jr., Chairman, et al., Respondents.
Judges: CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. .
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 295
Pages: 609–626

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. Jack M. TURNER, Relator, v. Richard T. EARLE, Jr., Chairman, et al., Respondents.
No. 44339.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 27, 1974.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 31, 1974.
Marion E. Sibley, of Sibley, Giblin, Lev-enson & Ward, Miami Beach, for relator.
Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., of Shackle-ford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, John Germany of Holland & Knight, Tampa, and Sam Daniels, Miami, for respondents.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of prohibition by which relator seeks to prohibit the Judicial Qualifications Commission from proceeding further in the formal proceedings initiated by the Commission against him. Relator urges that the Commission is without constitutional jurisdiction to proceed against him for acts allegedly committed by him while he served as Criminal Court of Record Judge and prior to the time he was elected and commissioned as a Circuit Judge, in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of this State.
Preliminarily, we directed that rule nisi in prohibition issue and in said order circumscribed the following question for briefing by the respective parties:
"Does the Judicial Qualifications Commission have jurisdiction to investigate and if appropriate to recommend discipline of, an incumbent circuit judge for misconduct alleged to have been committed prior to the time he became a circuit judge (and while he held another office not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission) ?"
Relative to our jurisdiction and the remedy employed by relator to vest this court with jurisdiction of the immediate cause, we must initially conclude that prohibition does not lie herein because the Judicial Qualifications Commission has no power to enter judgments or orders. The Judicial Qualifications Commission is not a judicial tribunal or commission within the purview of Article V, Section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. But rather it is the duty of this commission to investigate judicial conduct and make recommendations when agreed to by two-thirds of the members as to discipline of a judge to
the Supreme Court. The commission is an adjunct of the judicial branch of the government and shares the responsibility with the Supreme Court in matters involving discipline of judges. It is the Supreme Court which must take the final action. In In Re Kelly, a proceeding on recommendation of the commission, this court opined that, "The commission is in fact an arm of this Court dealing with a vital function of the Court and under its exclusive jurisdiction. While the power to render the ultimate judgment in these cases is vested in this Court, the findings and recommendations of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission are entitled to receive due consideration and are of persuasive force. . . . However, the ultimate responsibility of making a determination rests with this Court. . . . " Prohibition is that process by which a superior court prevents an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial powers from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters over which it has cognizance or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction to hear and determine. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ, a prerogative writ, very narrow in its scope of operation, used with great caution where ordinary remedies provided by law are not applicable or adequate. State ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500, 192 So. 175 (1939); Burkhart v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit et al., 146 Fla. 457, 1 So.2d 872 (1941) ; State ex rel. Gillham v. Phillips, 193 So.2d 26 (Fla.App.1966); State ex rel. Ferre v. Kehoe, 179 So.2d 403 (Fla.App.1965); Owen et al. v. Bond et al., 83 Fla. 495, 91 So. 686 (1922). In State ex rel. Swearingen et al. v. Railroad Commissioners of Florida, 79 Fla. 526, 84 So. 444 (1920), this Court succinctly stated:
"The statutes regulating the procedure in issuing writs of prohibition contemplate the use of the writ only to restrain the unlawful exercise of judicial or quasi judicial power.
"At common law it is well settled that a writ of prohibition must be directed to some judicial tribunal or officer. In other words, it lies only to prevent or control judicial (or quasi judicial) action, as distinguished from legislative, executive, or ministerial action. Accordingly, it is generally held that prohibition will not lie to prevent the performance of ministerial duties by executive or administrative officers, or to restrain the performance by the courts of duties which are merely administrative and ministerial."
Since the commission lacks the power essential to judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals either to reach a final decision or to implement that decision, prohibition is an inappropriate remedy, sub judice.
However, in view of Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution as amended 1973, F.S.A., which provides in pertinent part that " . . . no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought," Article V, Section 12(c), Florida Constitution 1973, F.S. A., which provides:
"The supreme court shall adopt rules regulating proceedings of the commission, the fil[l]ing of vacancies by the ap pointing authorities and the temporary-replacement of disqualified or incapacitated members. After a recommendation of removal of any justice or judge, the record of the proceedings before the commission shall be made public."
and Article V, Section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution 1973, F.S.A., which provides:
"(b) Jurisdiction. The supreme court:
"(4) May issue . all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction."
we have jurisdiction of this cause and in this posture we will proceed with the disposition of the question of law presented.
We are primarily concerned at this time with the above posited question which was specified in our order directing that rule nisi in prohibition issue. With regard to this issue, the following facts presented by Turner in his petition are pertinent. Jack M. Turner is a duly elected and commissioned Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. He was elected to a six-year term which commenced on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1973, and was commissioned to this office as Circuit Judge on November 8, 1973. Prior to becoming a Circuit Judge, Turner had been elected and commissioned for a term of four years from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1969, to the office of Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, and had served in such capacity until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1973. On April 6, 1973, an indictment was returned against Turner charging that he, as a judicial officer, namely a Criminal Court of Record Judge, on August 14, 1972 through October 13, 1972, conspired to commit the felony of bribery. The Judicial Qualifications Commission initiated formal proceedings against Turner charging him with conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary based on the events described in the indictment occurring from August 14, 1972, and continuing and including October 13, 1972, alleged acts and conduct which occurred while Turner served as a Criminal Court of Record Judge and before he was commissioned as a Circuit Judge. Based on the aforestated charges, the commission filed a request for suspension of Turner on April 16, 1973, upon which this Court declined to act at that time since Turner filed a statement of his intent not to discharge his duties as Circuit Judge pending disposition of the charges. Subsequently, on August 14, 1973, he was tried before a jury on these charges and was acquitted. Turner states that he has been informed that the commission is proceeding against him and intends to file a second request for his suspension with this Court based upon the same grounds, the charges included in the indictment as above explained.
Relator contends that the commission lacks power to further proceed against him for alleged acts committed by him in another public office. There is no dispute between the parties herein involved that prior to January 1, 1973, the "new" commission could not have investigated or made recommendations to this Court regarding relator since he was not a member of that part of the judiciary within the commission's jurisdiction as defined by Article V, Section 17, Florida Constitution 1968, F.S.A. Prior to January 1, 1973, the Judicial Qualifications Commission had jurisdiction only of alleged misconduct on the part of justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the District Courts of Appeal, and judges of the Circuit Courts. No other judgeships were under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission. Because of this factual background, the Court in disposing of the matter, circumscribed the above-described question containing particularly the bracketed words "and while; he held another office not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission." The issue now presented is whether the new commission may now proceed against relator for alleged misconduct occurring prior to his commission as Circuit Judge and while he was in another public office.
Although as aforestated, it is not the prerogative of the Judicial Qualifications Commission to suspend or remove a member of the judiciary from office, but rather only to make recommendations to this effect to the Supreme Court, we are compelled to render a decision by the facts of the instant cause and the necessity to avoid duplicitous and lengthy future proceedings on this matter when such may be avoided by an opinion in the form of a rule-making opinion dispositive of the issue.
Recognizing that there are divergent views, we find that the rule supported by the great weight of authority and specifically adopted by this Court in construing statutory and constitutional provisions authorizing the removal of public officers guilty of misconduct when such provisions do not refer to the term of office in which the misconduct occurred is that a public officer may not be removed from office for misconduct which he committed in another public office or in a prior term of office in the absence of disqualification to hold office in the future because of such misconduct. (See Article VI, Section 4, Florida Constitution 1968, F.S.A.) In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 31 Fla. 1, 12 So. 114 (1893); In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 64 Fla. 168, 60 So. 337 (1912); State ex rel. Hardee v. Allen, 126 Fla. 878, 172 So. 222 (1937); Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 156 Fla. 682, 24 So.2d 108 (1945); State ex rel. Hawthorne v. Wisehart, 158 Fla. 267, 28 So.2d 589 (1946); In re Proposed Disciplinary Action by the Florida Bar Against a Circuit Judge, 103 So.2d 632 (Fla.1958); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969); Woods v. Varnum, 85 Cal. 639, 24 P. 843; Speed v. Common Council of City of Detroit et al., 98 Mich. 360, 57 N.W. 406 (1894); Thurston v. Clark, 107 Cal. 285, 40 P. 435 (1895); State ex rel. Schultz v. Patton, 131 Mo.App. 628, 110 S.W. 636 (1908); State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hasty, 184 Ala. 121, 63 So. 559 (1913); State ex rel. Thompson v. Crump, 134 Tenn. 121, 183 S.W. 505 (1916); State v. Scott, 35 Wyo. 108, 247 P. 699 (1926); Jacobs v. Parham, 175 Ark. 86, 298 S.W. 483 (1927); Barham v. McCollum, 174 Ark. 1179, 298 S.W. 484 (1927); Board of Commrs. of Kingfisher County v. Shutler, Okl., 281 P. 222 (1929); Edson v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App. 367, 277 P. 194; State v. Blake, 138 Okl. 241, 280 P. 833 (1929); In re Fudula et al., 297 Pa. 364, 147 A. 67 (1929); Montgomery v. Nowell, 183 Ark. 1116, 40 S.W.2d 418 (1931); Rice v. State, 204 Ark. 236, 161 S.W.2d 401 (1942); People ex rel. Bagshaw v. Thompson, 55 Cal.App.2d 147, 130 P.2d 237 (1942); State ex rel. Agee et al. v. Hassler, 196 Tenn. 158, 264 S.W.2d 799 (1954); State ex rel. Chitwood v. Murley, 202 Tenn. 637, 308 S.W.2d 405 (1957); People v. Hale, 232 Cal.App.2d 112, 42 Cal.Rptr. 533 (1965); Letcher v. Commonwealth, 414 S.W.2d 402 (Ky.1966); State ex rel. Stokes v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County, 22 Ohio St.2d 120, 51 Ohio Ops.2d 180, 258 N.E.2d 594 (1970); Smith v. Godby, 174 S.E.2d 165 (W.Va.1970), 42 ALR3d 675; see also House of Repre sentatives 42nd Cong., 3d Sess., Report No. 81, Inquiry as to Impeachment in Credit Mobilier Testimony as contained in Impeachment, Selected Materials, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1973. This principle is equally applicable to judicial officers who are clearly encompassed within the classification of public officials.
This Court speaking through the revered late Justice Terrell in Rosenfelder v. Hut-toe, 156 Fla. 682, 24 So.2d 108 (1945), emphatically stated:
"No rule is better settled under our democratic theory than this; When one is re-elected or re-appointed to an office or position he is not subject to removal for offenses previously committed."
Therein, the acts with which appellee had been charged had occurred when he had held another and different position from which he had later been promoted.
In In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 64 Fla. 168, 60 So. 337 (1912), this Court held that,
"The power thus given the Governor to suspend the incumbent of an office and to fill the office by appointment is necessarily confined to the current term of the office. See Advisory Opinion to Governor, 31 Fla. 1, 12 So. 114, 18 L.R. A. 594. The causes for suspension are 'malfeasance, or misfeasance, or neglect of duty in office, for the commission of any felony, or for drunkenness or incompetency,' and the Constitution contemplates that the causes for suspension from office shall arise from the conduct of the officer during the term for which the officer is then in commission. You are therefore respectfully advised that the Constitution does not authorize the Governor to suspend an incumbent of the office of county commissioner for an act of malfeasance or misfeasance in office committed by him prior to the date of the beginning of his present term of office as such county commissioner."
Likewise, in State ex rel. Hawthorne v. Wisehart, 158 Fla. 267, 28 So.2d 589 (1946), this Court explained that the power of suspension and removal for misconduct in office is limited to the current term. See also, In re Proposed Disciplinary Action by The Florida Bar Against a Circuit Judge, 103 So.2d 632 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. Hardee v. Allen, 126 Fla. 878, 172 So. 222 (1937). Reasoning that when the effect of the removal or suspension is not disqualification from holding office in the future, misconduct in a previous public office can not be a basis for removal from office in another office or subsequent term of office, this Court in In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 31 Fla. 1, 12 So. 114 (1893), opined:
"Again, the constitution has not given to the suspension or removal the effect of disqualifying the suspended or removed person from holding the same or any other office in the future; on the contrary, not only is there an utter absence of any such provision, but an intention that it shall not have this effect is also shown in a separate and distinct declaration of what the framers of the constitution and the people intended should have that effect, which declaration is to be found in the fifth section of the sixth article. That section directs the legislature to enact the necessary laws to exclude from every office of honor, power, trust, or profit, civil or military, within the state, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury, larceny, or of infamous crime, and for other causes therein stated, yet provides that this legal disability shall not accrue until after trial and conviction in due form of law. The legislation enforcing this section is to be found in the Revised Statutes, § 211; and the 214th section enacts that every office shall be deemed vacant upon the conviction of the incumbent of any felony or of an offense involving a violation of his official oath. The limited effect which it was intended that the suspensions and removals under discussions should have is also shown by the provision of the section which authorizes them, (section 15, art. 4) that 'the suspension or removal herein authorized shall not relieve the officer from indictment for any misdemeanor in office.'
"A suspension or removal not haying of itself the effect to taint the person or officer, either while suspended or after removal, with any disqualification to hold any 'office, we are unable to see how it can affect his right to exercise the functions of a future term of the same office. He is as qualified for or as eligible to election to a future term pending the suspension, or after the removal, as he was before the suspension. . . . "
See also State ex rel. Thompson v. Crump, 134 Tenn. 121, 183 S.W. 505, 508 (1916); State ex rel. Chitwood v. Murley, 202 Tenn. 637, 308 S.W.2d 405 (1957); see also Speed v. Common Council of City of Detroit et al., 98 Mich. 360, 57 N.W. 406 (1894). Article VI, Section 4, Florida Constitution, 1968, F.S.A., provides the grounds for disqualification from holding public office. This section provides:
"No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability."
In State ex rel. Schultz v. Patton, et al., 131 Mo.App. 628, 110 S.W. 636 (1908), it was held:
"The proceeding is authorized thereby for 'cause shown'; and while it seems that the defalcation in the office of collector ought to be sufficient cause for removal from the office of treasurer within the contemplation of the statute, supra, the weight of authority indicates and supports the law to be that, unless the incumbent has been convicted in a court of law prior to such proceeding, the misconduct for which a removal is sought, in the absence of statutory specifications to the contrary, must be misconduct with respect to the execution of the particular office from which the incumbent is sought to be ousted, and such misconduct must constitute a legal cause for removal, and affect a proper administration of such office."
A public officer is elected for a term and sworn to duties of office for that term. State ex rel. Chitwood v. Murley," supra. One term of office has been generally held to be separate and distinct from other terms of the same office. People ex rel. Bagshaw v. Thompson, 130 P.2d 237 (Cal.1942); Thurston v. Clark, 107 Cal. 285, 40 P. 435. It was held in Jacobs v. Parham, 175 Ark. 86, 298 S.W. 483 (1927), that each term of office is a separate entity and that suspension may not be had for official misconduct during a prior term of office. People v. Hale, 232 C.A.2d 112, 42 Cal.Rptr. 533 (1965).
The pertinent constitutional provision relative to the disciplinary and removal proceedings of judicial officers do not refer to the term in which the misconduct occurred and thus the precept adopted by the majority of jurisdictions including Florida, i. e., that acts of a public officer during a previous office or previous term are not cause for removal from office in the absence of disqualification to hold office in the future, applied sub judice. The court in State ex rel. Stokes v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County, 22 Ohio St.2d 120, 51 Ohio Op.2d 180, 258 N.E.2d 594 (1970), stated that an office must be limited to a j single term in which the misconduct in office charged against the public officer occurred and in the absence of clear legislative language making conduct in prior terms a ground for removal from office. The ground alleged for removal must have occurred during the term in which he was sought and subsequent to the exercise of the power to elect vested in the electors.
Respondents rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in In Re Greenberg, 442 Pa. 411, 280 A.2d 370 (1971), for a contrary view. However, therein the misconduct charged against Judge Greenberg occurring prior to his ascendancy to the bench amounted to a conviction of a federal offense — twenty-one counts of using the mails to defraud. The Pennsylvania court explained:
"Suspensions, filling office during suspensions.— (a) By executive order stating the grounds * and filed with the secretary of state, the governor may suspend from office any. -state officer not subject to impeachment, any officer of the militia not in the active service of the United States, or any county officer, for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform his official duties, or commission of a felony, and may fill the office by appointment for the period of suspension. The suspended officer may at any time before removal be reinstated by the governor. (b) The senate may, in proceedings prescribed by law, remove from office or reinstate the suspended official and for such purpose the senate may be convened in special session by its president or' by a majority of its membership, (c) By order of the governer any elected municipal officer indicted for crime may be suspended from office until acquitted and the office filled by appointment for the period of suspension, not to extend beyond the term, unless these powers are vested elsewhere by law or the municipal charter.
"In its conclusions of law the Board stated that the conviction in the United States District Court of a judge of the court of common pleas of a conspiracy to use the United States mail to defraud, 'a felony-type offense', 'constitutes conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice and brings the judicial office into disrepute.' It also concluded that it is contrary to the intent and purpose of Article V, Sec. 18 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that a judge of the court of common pleas 'hold judicial office, administer the judicial power of the Commonwealth, exercise judicial functions and perform judicial acts while he himself stands convicted of unlawful and felonious acts.' We accept both the findings and conclusions of the Board."
It, therefore, becomes significant that Turner in the instant matter was acquitted rather than convicted of the acts charged.
We are not unmindful of the existence of a minority rule as set forth by the New York court in Sarisohn v. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 31 N.Y.2d 36, 286 N.Y.S.2d 255, 233 N.E.2d 276 (1967). However, since such is a minority view and the Supreme Court of Florida has five times aligned itself to the majority rule to the contrary, this Court prefers to follow the doctrine of stare decisis and adhere to the view stated by Mr. Justice Terrell in Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, supra.
Furthermore, we must note that the question involved sub judice was not before this Court in In Re Kelly, 238 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1970). This opinion does not recede from and is not to be confused with the decision in In Re Kelly, supra. In the Kelly case, the investigation did extend backwards for a long period of time and into another term of Judge Kelly but it must be remembered that at all times complained of Judge Kelly was a circuit judge and within the jurisdiction of the Qualifications Commission. Therein lies the difference in the two cases. Turner's alleged misconduct occurred when he was not within the jurisdiction of the Qualifications Commission as a matter of law and fact. Kelly's misconduct occurred when he was within the jurisdiction of the Qualifications Commission as a matter of law and fact. Therein lies the difference between the two cases and calls for a different rule of law.
Relator cannot be removed from office by the new Judicial Qualifications Commission for acts occurring during a prior term in a different office, i. e., Criminal Court of Record Judge, absent conviction of felony or other disqualification from holding office. We reiterate that the final decision as to reprimand or removal of a judge when warranted is for the Supreme Court when proceeding under Article V, Section 12(d). The Judicial Qualifications Commission is in effect an investigatory commission and as such it has the right to investigate matters occurring within a reasonable time but not exceeding two years behind its origin where such investigation and matters are germane to an alleged act of misconduct occurring after January 1, 1973. It may investigate backwards for a reasonable time behind a present term of office as a basis for misconduct in a present office or term of office only when such investigation is in relation to a charge of misconduct occurring in a present term of office. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in In Re Fudula, et al., supra, stated, and we agree:
"This case states, what seems to be the correct rule, that 'the acts of an officer during a previous term, though not grounds for impeachment, may be considered in so far as they are connected with or bear upon his general course of conduct during his present term, for th'e limited purpose of inquiring into his motive and intent as to the acts and omissions charged to him during his second term.' "
and in State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hasty, supra, the Supreme Court of Alabama declared:
"While we have eliminated the acts of the previous term, as grounds of impeachment, we have considered some of them as evidential facts, in so far as they are connected with or bear upon the respondent's general course of conduct during the second term, for the limited purpose of inquiring into the motive and intent of the respondent as to the acts and omissions charged to him during the second term."
These pronouncements are in accord with our recent decision in In Re Kelly, supra, wherein we stated as obiter dicta that the commission may at any time consider acts of misconduct reflecting adversely upon the proper performance of the duties of the judicial office held. In this cause, we have cited with approval the Kelly case and now specifically adhere to the ruling of the case because it related to entirely different facts. Incidentally, the decision in the Kelly case was a partial receding from the pronouncement of the Court authored by the late Justice Glenn Terrell in Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 156 Fla. 682, 24 So.2d 108 (1945).
All dictum in this opinion must be read in the context of the circumscribed facts and not considered a precedent in cases involving different facts. The purpose of the dictum is merely to show the expanse of the total research and the logic supporting the judgment dispositive of the facts in the Turner case and no other.
By way of caveat, we have observed that there is an hiatus in the law in certain matters where election law violations become a subject of disciplinary investigation. For example, where an attorney is a candidate for and is elected to a judgeship and commits flagrant election law violations in so doing, he escapes investigation by The Florida Bar upon becoming a Circuit Judge under the ruling of this Court in In Re Proposed Disciplinary Action by
The Florida Bar Against a Circuit Judge, supra. Yet, he also would escape investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission in that he was not a judge at the time of the alleged offense. We, therefore, respectfully call to the attention of the Legislature this deficiency with the thought that it might want to provide some corrective remedy by submitting a resolution for constitutional amendment.
Thus, it is our opinion, and we hold:
(1) Prohibition is not an appropriate remedy to challenge proceedings by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, but this Court has jurisdiction in this cause under its rule making power and the all writs provisions of the Constitution.
(2) Consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority in the nation as here-inabove set forth, we hold that a public official cannot be disciplined or removed from the office of Circuit Judge upon which he entered January 2, 1973, for misconduct alleged to have occurred in 1972 while such public officer held the office of Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, and office not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission at anytime during the year of 1972. This holding is not intended in any manner or wise to recede from the Kelly case, supra, which was anchored to an entirely different set of facts as hereinabove mentioned and set forth. Significantly but not controlling, Judge Turner was acquitted by a jury of the charges complained of by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
(3) The Judicial Qualifications Commission may investigate the alleged misconduct of the Relator, Judge Jack M. Turner, within a reasonable time backwards but not exceeding two years behind the date upon which he assumed new duties having been elected Circuit Judge in the 1972 elections, but any misconduct established during 1972 cannot, standing alone, serve as a basis for his discipline as a Circuit Judge but can be used only insofar as such investigation develops evidence germane to charges allegedly occurring in the current term of office.
It is hardly to be expected that the exact situation here would ever arise again be cause, under revised Article V which became effective January 1, 1973, all courts were abolished except the Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal, Circuit Courts, and County Courts, all of which, under the revised Article V, are within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
The former views being dispositive of the cause sub judice, it is not necessary to consider other questions at this time.
The commission has consistently complied with the rules adopted by this Court regulating proceedings of the commission, and we have no idea that the commission will do otherwise in these proceedings or otherwise. However, if such should ever occur, jurisdiction is available to this Court through the all writs provision of the Constitution, Article V, Section 3(b)(4), Constitution of Florida, 1973 F.S.A.
Having thusly announced the principles of law applicable to the present controversy and believing as just above stated that final judgment is unnecessary, jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties is retained for the purposes of making such future judgment in the premises as the exigencies of the situation may require or permit.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. .
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion concurred in by BOYD, J.
BOYD, J., dissents with opinion concurred in by ERVIN, J.
. Article V, Section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution (1973), F.S.A., provides: "May issue writs of prohibition to courts and commissions in causes within the jurisdiction of the supreme court to review, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction."
. Article V, Section 12(d), Florida Constitution (1973), F.S.A., provides: "Upon recommendation of two-thirds of the members of the judicial qualifications commission, the supreme court may order that the justice or judge be disciplined by appropriate reprimand, or be removed from office with termination of compensation for willful or persistent failure to perform his duties, or for other conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary, or be involuntarily retired for any permanent disability that seriously interferes with the performance of his duties. After the filing of a formal proceeding and upon request of the commission, the supreme court may suspend the justice or judge from office, with or without compensation, pending final determination of the inquiry."
. See Modlin v. City of Miami Beach, 201 So.2d 70 (Fla.1967), DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Ma.1957).
. As created by Article V, Section 12, Constitution of Florida, as amended 1973, F.S.A.
. The commission cites as additional authority for the proposition that removal may be had for misconduct in a previous office the decision of the Court on Judiciary of Oklahoma in Sharpe v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc., Okl., 448 P.2d 301. However, in that ease the court pointed out that a specific statutory provision enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature in 1955, 22 O.S.1961, § 1181.1, relating to removal of officers in general, which specifically provides: "Removal for acts of commission, omission, neglect. —All elective officers in the State of Oklahoma, including elective officers of the State and elective officers in each County, City, Town or School District of the State of Oklahoma, but excluding any elective officers liable to impeachment, shall be subject to removal from office in such manner and for such causes as now provided by law, or as may be provided by law passed subsequent to this Act, and any such officer or officers may be removed or ousted from office for any act or acts of commission or omission^or neglect which may be committed, done or omitted during the term in which such ouster or removal proceedings may be filed, and any such officer or officers, may be removed or ousted from office for any act or acts of commission, omission, or neglect committed, done or omitted during a previous or preceding term in such office. Laws 1955, p. 200, § 1." The people of Oklahoma adopted Article 7-A, Constitution of Oklahoma, May 3, 1966, which created a "Court on the Judiciary." Section 1, thereof provides: "Removal of judges from office— Compulsory retirement- — Causes—(a) In addition to other methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws, the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the Judiciary, (b) Cause for removal from office shall be: Gross neglect of duty; corruption in office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of any offense involving moral turpitude; gross partiality in office; oppression . in office; or other grounds as may he specified hereaftw by the legislature." (emphasis supplied)
. The following excerpts from this material is pertinent:
"It will be seen from a few illustrations that it hardly could have been the intendment of the Constitution that an officer could be impeached for a crime committed by him before his entry into the office from which he is to be removed because, if this were so, there is no constitutional, and, thus far, no legal limitation as to the time during which he may be held so amenable to such impeachment.
"Tour committee have been unable, from their investigation, to find warrant for this assertion. We have already shown that all the precedents under the Constitution show impeachments to have been for acts done in the very office from which the accused was sought to be removed. We are unaware that there is any case to the contrary in the later decisions in England, or in any States of the Union', and we grieve that the committee, for whom we have so high a respect, have not seen fit to give authority to the House for this so grave and important a proposition of constitutional laws.
"We submit, with some confidence, that the House might expel an insane man, because it might not be safe or convenient for the House to have him within the legislative hall. The can also clearly expel a man for disorderly proceedings in the body, or for such acts outside of the body as render it at the time manifestly improper for him to be in the House. But your committee are constrained to believe that the power of expelling a member for some alleged crime, committed it may be years before his election, is not within the constitutional prerogative of the House. "We do not overlook the argument presented by the learned committee, upon whose report we are observing, by the phrase: Every consideration of justice and sound policy would seem to require that the public interests be secured and those chosen to'be their guardians be free from pollution of high crimes, no matter at what time that pollution had attached.
"But the answer seems to us an obvious one that the Constitution has given to the House of Representatives no constitutional power over such considerations of 'justice and sound policy' as a qualification in representation. On the contrary, the Constitution has given this power to another and higher tribunal, to wit, the constituency of the member. Every intendment of our form of government would seem to point to that. This is a Government of the people, which assumes that they are the best judges of the social, intellectual, and moral qualifications of their Representatives whom they are to choose, not anybody else to choose for them; and we, therefore, find in the people's Constitution and frame of government they have, in the very first article and second section, determined that 'the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the States,' not by Representatives chosen for them at the will and caprice of members of Congress from - other States according to the notions of the 'necessities of self-preservation and self-purification' which might suggest themselves of the reason or caprice of the members from other States in any process of purgation or purification which two-thirds of the members of either House may 'deem necessary' to prevent bringing 'the body into contempt and disgrace.'
"Your committee are further emboldened to take this view of this very important con stitutional question, because they find that in the same section it is provided what shall be the qualifications of a Representative of the people, so chosen by the people themselves. On this it is solemnly enacted, unchanged during the life of the nation, that 'No person shall he a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, he an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.'
"Your committee believe that there is no man or body of men who can add to or take away one jot or title of these qualifications. The enumeration of such specified qualifications necessarily excludes every other. It is respectfully submitted that it is nowhere provided that the House of Representatives shall consist of such members as are left after the process of 'purgation and purification' shall have been exercised for the public safety, such as may be 'deemed necessary' by any majority of the House. The power itself seems to us too dangerous, the claim of power too exaggerated, to be confided in any body of men; and, therefore, most wisely retained in the people themselves, by the express words of the Constitution.
"Who, then, will dare assert that for offenses committed ten years ago, yea, five years, or one year ago, before the election of a member the House has power to expel at its caprice, under a constitutional provision which declares 'the House may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member?' "
. This precept above explained has been held to apply when statutes or constitution do not specifically provide for disqualification from future office for such misconduct or where they do not specifically provide for going behind previous term. Although not applicable to the instant cause we note that in the 1969 session the Legislature promulgated Chapter 69-277, Laws of Florida, (amended by Chapter 71-333, Laws of Florida), Section 112.42, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., relating to the governor's power to suspend. This section provides: "112.42 Period during which grounds may have occurred. — The governor may suspend any officer on any constitutional ground for such suspension that occurred during the existing term of the officer or during the next preceding four years." The constitutional question as to whether the Legislature can enlarge the suspension power of the Governor as conveyed by Article IV, Section 7, Florida Constitution has not as yet been raised. The constitutionality of this statute which obviously relates only to the Governor's authority to suspend has not been measured against Article IV, Section 7, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which provides;
. In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, supra; In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor, supra; State ex rel. Hardee v. Allen, supra; Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, supra; and State ex rel Hawthorne v. Wisehart, supra.
. The statute of limitations on crimes less than capital is two years and this is the rule generally followed by grand juries. This is the nearest thing to a declaration of public policy on the question of a reasonable time for investigation.
. "Since the assumption of judicial duties suspends all rights and privileges to engage in the practice of law [Sec. 18, Art. Y, Florida Constitution], it should, logically, operate as a suspension of disciplinary procedures designed simply to ensure that such rights and privileges shall not he exercised by one who has shown himself unfit to practice law, and not to penalize or punish the offending member. Application of Harper, Fla., 84 So.2d 700, 702, 54 A.L.R.2d 1272."