STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TOMMY LEE SHERROD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals from a trial court order dismissing cocaine possession charges with prejudice following two mistrials. The appellate court held that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss the charges on its own motion after mistrials and reversed, holding that no jeopardy attached to permit retrial.
The trial court lacked authority to enter the dismissal order on its own motion following mistrials. Although the dismissal resembled an acquittal, it was not a valid judgment of acquittal, and jeopardy did not attach to bar retrial because the order departed from essential requirements of law.
[1] An appellate court has jurisdiction to review an order dismissing an information, even if the dismissal is with prejudice.
[2] A trial court is without authority to dismiss charges with prejudice on its own motion after mistrials, absent a finding of insufficient evidence or a defendant's motion…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In the event a jury cannot reach a verdict, the trial court should declare a mistrial, discharge the jury and set the case for retrial.”
Establishes the proper procedure the trial court should have followed rather than dismissing with prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSherrod was charged with cocaine possession. After two jury trials resulted in mistrials, the trial court entered an order on its own motion dismissin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Appellant, Tommy Lee Sherrod, was charged by Information with possession of cocaine in violation of Sections 893.-03(2)(a)(4) and 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1977). After two jury trials resulted in mistrials, the trial court entered an order “ . . . on its own motion that the charges against the defendant be and the same are hereby dismissed with prejudice.” The State appeals from this order. We-address initially the question of whether this Court has jurisdiction. Rule 9.140(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure permits an appeal from an order dismissing an Information. The instant dismissal with prejudice to future prosecution, while resembling a judgment of acquittal which we have no jurisdiction to review, State v. Brown, 330 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), is not, in fact or form, a judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, we treat it as an order dismissing an Information and address the merits from that perspective.
The trial court gave no indication that the order resulted from a finding that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction. In addition, the defendant made no motion for judgment of acquittal. In the event a.jury cannot reach a verdict, the trial court should declare a mistrial, discharge the jury and set the case for retrial. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.560(b); Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939); Johnson v. State, 54 Fla. 45, 44 So. 765 (1907).
We therefore find that the trial court was without authority to enter the order of dismissal. Concluding that the order was erroneously entered, we are confronted with the argument that the order was the substantial equivalent of an acquittal and that the constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida prohibit placing an individual twice in jeopardy for the same offense. Amend. V, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 9, Fla.Const. The consequence of accepting this argument is that the order of dismissal may not be reversed because the retrial which would necessarily follow would constitute double jeopardy. However, where a mistrial occurs there is no “formal jeopardy” to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Smith v. State, supra. This is true even in the event of three mistrials. State v. Dowling, 91 Fla. 236, 107 So. 267 (1926). As we said in Sayan v. State, 381 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980):
After a mistrial, a case stands as if it had never been tried and the defendant is subject to being tried again on the same charge.
Conceding as we have that the order under review goes beyond a simple declaration of mistrial and is in the nature of an acquittal, we determine that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in entering that order. We further conclude that since the order was entered under those circumstances, jeopardy has not attached to prevent the defendant from being tried again for the same offense.
The Second District, in State v. Vinson, 320 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), reached a similar result. That court granted a common law writ of certiorari to review a trial court’s order entered pursuant to an evidentiary hearing finding defendant not guilty and discharging him from prosecution. The Supreme Court, in Vinson v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1977), affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law to the irrevocable prejudice of the state and that jeopardy had not attached. The court held that double jeopardy sanctions come to fruition only if the court properly acts in a manner within its jurisdiction and authority.
Having concluded that the order appealed from was beyond the authority of the trial court, we reverse the order dismissing the Information with prejudice and remand the cause with instructions to set the case for retrial.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherrod v. The Honorable Arthur J. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1983)…n of sections 893.03(2)(a)(4) and 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1977). After two mistrials the trial court ordered the charges dismissed with prejudice and cancelled defendant’s appearance bond. This order was reversed on appeal. State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). A new trial was set for July 23, 1980, and defendant’s counsel, the public defender, was notified. Defendant failed to appear for trial and a no-bond capias was issued. The trial was rescheduled and the public defender again was…
-
State v. Gaines, 770 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2000)…ellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(E) only provides the State with the right to appeal a trial court order "granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict.” (Emphasis supplied.) . This case is thus distinguishable from State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and State v. Harris, 439 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In Sherrod, the Fourth District determined that although the trial court’s order dismissing charges against a defendant with prejudice resembled á judgment of acquitta…
-
State v. Harris, 439 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…d we be misinterpreting these orders, which we clearly believe we are not, there are other means of entertaining an appeal by the state in regard to the order granting the “renewed motion for judgment of acquittal.” For example, in State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), the court treated an order dismissing charges against a defendant as an order dismissing an information, while admitting that the order was in the nature of an order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal. The court then en…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835 (Fla. 1939)
- Hutchins v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1977)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Dowling, 91 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1926)
- State v. Brown, 330 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- State v. Vinson, 320 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Sayan v. State, 381 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Johnson v. State, 54 Fla. 45 (Fla. 1907)