STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD HENRY BOLICK, 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's order dismissing cocaine trafficking and related charges after the court sustained a corpus delicti objection to the defendant's statements. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that once jeopardy attached and the jury was sworn, the dismissal order was functionally equivalent to a judgment of acquittal and therefore non-appealable by the state.
The state cannot appeal from the dismissal order because once jeopardy attached with the jury being sworn, the trial court's dismissal served as the functional equivalent of a judgment of acquittal, which is non-appealable by the state.
[1] The state's right to appeal an order dismissing criminal charges is limited once jeopardy has attached.
[2] A trial court's ruling that functionally serves as a judgment of acquittal bars further prosecution.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Once jeopardy has attached, however, the state's right of redress is extremely limited. For example, the state is not permitted to appeal from a judgment of acquittal.”
Establishes the core limitation on state appeals once jeopardy attaches.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBolick's trial began on December 18, 1986, with a jury sworn and witnesses testifying. The state sought to introduce incriminating statements made by …
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 Motion To Dismiss Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case the state has filed a notice of its intent to appeal an order of the circuit court granting appellee Edward Bolick’s motion to dismiss charges of trafficking in cocaine, aggravated assault, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court apparently has refused to enter a written order of dismissal, and so the state has requested that this court require her to do so because a written order is necessary to secure the right of appeal. Billie v. State, 473 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).1 However, because we find that the trial court’s decision would not be reviewable under any circumstances we decline to consider the state’s motion and instead dismiss this appeal.
Bolick’s trial began on December 18, 1986. After the jury was sworn and several witnesses had testified, the state sought to introduce certain incriminating statements allegedly made by Bolick following his arrest. Bolick objected to the admission of these statements on the grounds that the state had not proven corpus delicti. See Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986, 101 S.Ct. 407, 66 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980).
The trial court sustained Bolick’s objection. Hereafter the denouement becomes rather confusing. The court would not grant a directed verdict because the state had not yet rested (although it is clear the prosecutor felt he could not continue with the trial in light of the adverse ruling), and Bolick would not agree to a mistrial.
However, when Bolick orally moved to dismiss the court granted the motion. There is no written order, and the trial court expressed her opinion that the ruling might not be appealable.
An order dismissing all or part of an indictment or information is among those from which the state is permitted an interlocutory appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(A).
Generally, however, such orders will be entered prior to trial or retrial, that is, before jeopardy has attached. See, e.g., State v. Haynes, 463 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA), petition for review denied, 475 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1985); State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Once jeopardy has attached, however, the state’s right of redress is extremely limited. For example, the state is not permitted to appeal from a judgment of acquittal. State v. Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1985).
Neither may a defendant be retried after a mistrial is declared over his objection, except in cases of “manifest necessity” or misconduct on the part of the defendant. Spaziano v. State, 429 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Although in the present case the court did not characterize its ruling as a judgment of acquittal, it served as the functional equivalent thereof. When a court has withdrawn criminal charges from consideration by a sworn jury, the effect is the same as an acquittal and further prosecution is barred. Brown v. State, 130 Fla. 479, 178 So. 153 (1938).2
Motion denied; appeal dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur. . In State v. Kahler, 224 So. 2d 272, 275 (Fla.1969), Justice Ervin, concurring specially, opined that the state should be permitted to take an appeal from a minute book entry in those situations where the court obviously will do no more than orally dismiss or quash criminal charges. However, the definition of “order” in the rules of appellate procedure specifically excludes minutes or minute book entries. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(e). We think, therefore, that the better practice is to seek relief via a motion or petition for writ of mandamus, as the state has done here.
. We do not mean to suggest that the state always should be foreclosed from appealing an adverse ruling just because a jury has been sworn. Conceivably a defendant who agrees to litigate in mid-trial an issue which should have been disposed of prior to trial, and which under normal circumstances the state would be permitted to appeal, might be estopped from complaining that a favorable ruling also necessitates termination of trial. However, because we view the trial court’s ruling in the present case as essentially a non-appealable judgment of acquittal, we are not faced with this precise question.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…If a trial court fails or refuses to enter a written order that is needed for an appeal, counsel has the remedy of filing a motion or a petition for writ of mandamus with this court to compel the trial court to enter such an order. State v. Bolick, 512 So. 2d 960 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Appeal dismissed. RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Even if we had jurisdiction, we do not find from the record that the trial court committed error by allowing the appellee to withdraw her pleas of guilty. Good…
-
Shaneika Chavon Samuel v. State, 133 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ial court fails or refuses to enter a written order that is needed for an appeal, counsel has the remedy of filing a motion or a petition for writ of mandamus with this court to compel the trial court to enter such an order” (citing State v. Bolick, 512 So. 2d 960 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987))). CLARK, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Camelia James, 626 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…mation and not on the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial, the action by the [*262] trial court does not render this matter res judicata. See United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). Compare State v. BoliCK, 512 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (state could not appeal dismissal which actually was a judgment of acquittal entered upon evidentiary evaluation of state’s case). The defendant argues that the trial court terminated the action as a judgment of acquittal and tha…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)
- Dankert v. Georgia, 449 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1980)
- Jewell v. United States, 449 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1980)
- Brown v. State, 130 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1938)
- Spaziano v. State, 429 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Sherrod, 383 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- In re the Marriage of Ronald Wayne Beasley v. Corrie Gail Beasley, 463 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Haynes, 463 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Billie v. State, 473 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)