Monger v. Florida

1972-02-28

Headline: Florida obscenity conviction stands as Supreme Court refuses review, saying the state court’s procedural ground is adequate and leaving the defendant’s appeal dismissed and conviction intact.

Holding: The Court denied review because the Florida Supreme Court’s dismissal rested on an adequate and independent state procedural ground, so this Court will not review the defendant’s First Amendment challenge to his obscenity convictions.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the Florida conviction and sentence in place because federal review was denied.
Allows state procedural rules to block federal review when they rest on adequate state grounds.
Defendant cannot have his First Amendment challenge heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Topics: obscenity law, criminal appeals, procedural rules, free speech, state court decisions

Summary

Background

Petitioner was a newsstand employee who sold 'girlie' magazines and was charged with selling two allegedly obscene magazines, Body Shop and The Erotic Cinema. A jury found him guilty on both counts on November 3, 1970. The trial court orally announced judgment and a sentence on January 12, 1971. That same day he filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the sentence. On January 18 the trial court entered a written order dated January 12. Florida's appellate process transferred the case to the Florida Supreme Court because the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the state obscenity law. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a 4-3 vote; one justice dissented.

Reasoning

The central question was whether dismissing the appeal for a timing rule should prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing the defendant's First Amendment challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review, explaining that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision rested on an adequate state procedural ground, which bars this Court from taking the case. Justice Douglas, joined by two colleagues, disagreed and argued that the procedural dismissal did not serve a legitimate state interest and should not block federal review; he would have granted review and sent the case back for further consideration.

Real world impact

Because the high court declined review, the Florida conviction and sentence remain in place and the defendant's federal First Amendment challenge was not addressed on the merits. The ruling shows that state procedural rules can prevent Supreme Court review when they are deemed an adequate state ground. The case does not resolve the obscenity questions themselves; a separate appeal over the same statute was noted as pending in another case before this Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the dismissal was too technical and that federal rights should not be defeated by such local procedural practice.