STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD ROBERT BOOTH AND BERTRAM MARK SCHWARTZ, APPELLEES
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 of Florida appeals the dismissal of drug charges against Booth and Schwartz on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court had dismissed state charges for marijuana possession and importation after federal conviction for the same conduct, finding the interests and penalties substantially similar. The appellate court reverses, adhering to the dual sovereignty doctrine permitting successive state and federal prosecutions.
The court adheres to the dual sovereignty doctrine and holds that no double jeopardy violation occurred. While acknowledging that some states have declined to permit state prosecution following federal prosecution where sovereign interests are substantially similar, Florida maintains the traditional rule that a defendant may constitutionally be tried for violations of both state and federal law arising from the same criminal episode.
[1] The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being twice put in jeopardy 'for the same offence,' not for the same conduct.
[2] An 'offence' is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign, meaning that where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two 'offences' for double je…
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“The general rule under the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" is that a defendant may constitutionally be tried for violations of state and federal laws arising from the same criminal episode.”
Establishes the foundational dual sovereignty doctrine that permits successive prosecutions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBooth and Schwartz landed an aircraft loaded with over 1,000 pounds of marijuana at Pensacola Airport. Both the federal government and State of Florid…
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 Dual Sovereignty Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
The State appeals an order dismissing informations filed against appellees Booth and Schwartz on grounds prosecution on such charges would violate the Florida and United States Constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. See U.S.Const. Amend. V; Fla.Const. Art. I § 9. Both the United States and the State of Florida filed charges against appellees after they landed an aircraft loaded with marijuana in excess of 1,000 pounds at Pensacola Airport. The federal indictment contained four counts: Counts I and II alleged conspiracy to possess marijuana in excess of 1,000 pounds and possession with the intent to distribute same, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2; and Counts III and IV alleged conspiracy to import marijuana in excess of 1,000 pounds and importation of same, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 952 and 963, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. The maximum penalty for such offenses was 40 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $125,000. Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(b)(1)(B).
Appel-lees were subsequently tried and adjudicated guilty as charged on all four counts in United States District Court. Appellee Booth was sentenced to two twelve-year and two five-year terms of imprisonment, all to run concurrently, and fined $75,000. Appellee Schwartz was sentenced to two fifteen-year and two five-year terms of imprisonment, all to run concurrently, and fined $100,000.
The state information contained three counts: Count I alleged possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, and Count II, possession with intent to sell same, in violation of Sections 893.13(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes; and Count III alleged importation of in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.135(1)(a).
The maximum penalty under Florida law was 40 years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. Appellees’ motion to dismiss the state information on double jeopardy grounds was granted by the trial court, who found that the interests to be protected and the penalties to be imposed in the state and federal proceedings were substantially similar. The general rule under the doctrine of “dual sovereignty” is that a defendant may constitutionally be tried for violations of state and federal laws arising from the same criminal episode. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978).
However, a number of states, while recog nizing the continued validity of this doctrine, have declined to permit state prosecution following federal prosecution for the same offense where the interests of both sovereigns are substantially similar. Annotation, “Conviction or Acquittal in Federal Court as Bar to Prosecution in State Court for State Offense Based on Same Facts—Modern View,” 6 A.L.R. 4th 802; Commonwealth v. Mills, 447 Pa. 163, 286 A. 2d 638, 643 (1971); People v. Cooper, 398 Mich. 450, 247 N.W. 2d 866 (1975).
We adhere to the settled doctrine of dual sovereignty and hold no violations of defendants’ constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy have occurred in this case.1 The order granting appellees’ motions to dismiss is reversed. The following question is certified to the Florida Supreme Court:
ARE SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS IN FEDERAL AND FLORIDA COURTS ON CHARGES ARISING OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF DRUG LAWS OF BOTH SOVEREIGNS BARRED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . Cf. Hernandez v. State, 397 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delisi v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…ried for violation of state and federal laws arising from the same criminal episode. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); State v. Booth, 418 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addressing this issue, this court asked for supplementary briefs on the question of whether compelled discovery in a civil RICO action, when a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination is exercised, operated as a gran…
-
Booth v. State, 436 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1983)…SHAW, Justice. Petitioners seek review of a district court of appeal decision, State v. Booth, 418 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), certifying a question to be of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Petitioners were arrested at the Pensacola Municipal Airport and charged by both the United States and the State of Fl…
-
Chipman v. State, 875 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…es v. Smith, 757 F. 2d 1161 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Burke, 495 F. 2d 1226 (5th Cir.1974); see also State v. Jones, 668 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); King v. State, 687 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); McNab, 642 So. 2d 41; State v. Booth, 418 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hernandez v. State, 897 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). An act denounced as a crime by two or more state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of each of the separate sovereignties and may be prosecuted and p…
Authorities Cited
- Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1959)
- United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1978)
- Hernandez v. State, 397 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)