GREGORY PAUL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court reversed the First District Court of Appeal's decision allowing pretrial consolidation of three sexual offenses under Rule 3.151, holding that similar offenses separated by time are not "related" within the rule's meaning.
Similar offenses that are unrelated in terms of time or sequence cannot be consolidated under Rule 3.151 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[1] Consolidation of criminal offenses under Rule 3.151 requires that offenses be related in time or sequence, not merely similar in nature.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul was charged with three sexual offenses; the first occurred approximately one month before the other two. The trial court ordered pretrial consoli…
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 Sexual Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
We here review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal1 construing Rule 3.151 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the consolidation of related offenses. The district court upheld the trial court’s order allowing the pretrial consolidation of three alleged sexual offenses, the first of which occurred approximately one month before the others. Paul seeks review of that decision on the ground that the alleged offenses, though similar in nature, were not “related” within the contemplation of Rule 3.151 and the relevant case law.
In effect, the district court’s interpretation of Rule 3.151 permits the consolidation of similar offenses which are unrelated in terms of time or sequence. We reverse, and adopt as our opinion Judge Smith’s well reasoned dissent in the case below insofar as it relates to Rule 3.151 and the consolidation of related offenses. We make no comment on that portion of Judge Smith’s dissent which discusses the so-called “ Williams Rule” Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959) of admissibility.2
The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opin-' ion.
. Paul v. State, 365 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
. See id. at 1066.
ALDERMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
Since the district court's decision in the present case does not conflict with any decision of a district court of appeal or this Court, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this cause. The district court addressed the issue of whether the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion for consolidation in light of the particular facts of this case. It properly did not consider whether it would have reached a different result if it were initially deciding the question. Applying the correct principles of law, the district court decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. By accepting jurisdiction and quashing the decision of the district court, the majority is merely substituting its judgment for that of the trial court and the district court of appeal.
Because we are without jurisdiction in this matter, I would deny certiorari.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (56 total)
-
Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)…y cannot consider petitions for review based on conflict when the decision is not accompanied by an opinion expressing any view on a question of law. A citation of authority is not an opinion. In Robles Del Mar, Inc. v. Town of Indian River Shores, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1980), we [*423] again held that we lacked jurisdiction to review a district court decision rendered without opinion but with a citation of authority. We noted, however, that the case cited by the district court in issuing the decision sought t…1 / 2
-
Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)…parate episodes, separated in time, which are 'connected' only by similar circumstances and the accused’s alleged guilt in both or all instances.” Paul [v. State, 365 So. 2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting), adopted in part, 385 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.1980).] Courts may consider “the temporal and geographical association, the nature of the crimes, and the manner in which they were committed,” Bundy [v. State, 455 [*790] So. 2d 330, 345 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct.…
-
Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1983)…rgely a matter of discretion with a trial court, and the burden is on the movant to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Manson v. State, 88 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1956); Ballard v. State, 323 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Johnson relies on Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1980), where this Court adopted Judge Smith’s dissent to Paul v. State, 365 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We find Paul distinguishable from the instant case because there the offenses occurred five weeks apart. Here, on the other hand, only…
Previewing 3 of 56 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Paul v. State, 365 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)