STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD WAYNE ROMANS, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1984-07-06
No. 83-1880
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
452 So. 2d 655 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1984)

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.


Holding

The court held that the state is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel from prosecuting a defendant for a substantive offense after a prior probation revocation hearing found insufficient evidence for the offense.


Facts & Procedural History

The state sought to prosecute a defendant for a substantive offense. The trial judge had previously found insufficient evidence to revoke probation ba…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The state seeks reversal of the lower court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. We reverse.

The issue below was whether the state was barred on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel from prosecuting the substantive offense for which the trial judge ruled there was insufficient evidence upon which to revoke probation in a sepa rate violation of probation hearing. In all essential particulars, this case is identical to State v. Justice, 451 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and on the authority and reasoning of Justice, we reverse. The Justice court relied in part on Green v. State, 450 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and certified to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance, the question certified by the Green court as:

When, in a probation proceeding, the trial judge finds the evidence is insufficient to prove the criminal offense asserted as the ground for revocation, is the state collaterally estopped from trying the defendant for the same criminal offense?

Accordingly, we reverse and certify the same question certified in Green and Justice.

Reversed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw