Opinion ID: 1865825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction of this Court to Consider the Merits of the Motion to Suppress

Text: We agree with the acknowledgment in the district court's opinion that its decision conflicts on the waiver issue with Davis and T.C. v. State, 336 So.2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). We have jurisdiction, and, once this Court has jurisdiction of a cause, it has jurisdiction to consider all issues appropriately raised in the appellate process, as though the case had originally come to this Court on appeal. This authority to consider issues other than those upon which jurisdiction is based is discretionary with this Court and should be exercised only when these other issues have been properly briefed and argued and are dispositive of the case. In Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 128 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1961), Justice Drew explained the reasons why, once it has jurisdiction, this Court should exercise its discretion and dispose of the entire cause when the issues are properly before it. Needless steps in litigation should be avoided wherever possible and courts should always bear in mind the almost universal command of constitutions that justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay. Piecemeal determination of a cause by our appellate court should be avoided and when a case is properly lodged here there is no reason why it should not then be terminated here... . [m]oreover, the efficient and speedy administration of justice is ... promoted by doing so. We have concluded that, based upon these principles, we can appropriately address the correctness of the trial judge's denial of the motion to suppress on its merits. Both parties have fully briefed and argued the issue before this Court, and our action in resolving this question will avoid a piecemeal determination of the case.