ABEL TOLEDO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Abel Toledo was convicted of DUI in county court despite having three prior DUI convictions, which would ordinarily make it a felony requiring circuit court jurisdiction. The court held that prosecutors have discretion to charge a lesser offense, and the county court properly maintained jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charge.
The court held that the prosecutor has discretion to charge a DUI as a misdemeanor despite prior convictions, and therefore the county court properly exercised jurisdiction over Toledo's fourth DUI violation. The certified question was answered in the negative.
[1] Prosecutors have discretion to charge a defendant with a lesser offense than the evidence may support.
[2] Courts are not to interfere with the discretionary powers of prosecutors in controlling criminal prosecutions.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 prosecutor has great discretion in deciding which charges should be filed and may decide, for a myriad of reasons, not to prosecute on certain charges notwithstanding the fact that sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction thereon.”
Establishes the foundational principle that prosecutors have broad charging discretion regardless of available evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceToledo was charged with violating Florida's DUI statute in county court. He had three prior DUI convictions. Toledo moved to dismiss for lack of juris…
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 Prosecutorial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
Abel Toledo, the defendant, was found guilty of violating Section 316.193, Florida Statutes (1989), for Driving Under the Influence of Alcoholic Beverages [“DUI”] in the County Court after jury trial. The defendant had previously been convicted of three DUI violations and moved the County Court to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction under Section 316.193(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). The County Court denied the motions and the defendant sought certification of the following question:
When a defendant charged with a violation of Fla.Stat. § 316.193 has three prior convictions of this same section or its predecessor, do the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 316.193(2)(b) require that the cause be tried by a circuit court.
The County Court certified the question as one of great public importance under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.160, and this Court granted discretionary review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.030(b)(4). We affirm the conviction and answer the certified question in the negative.
In our system of criminal justice, prosecutors have the prosecutorial discretion to charge a defendant with the crime that the evidence establishes that the defendant committed, or any lesser crime thereof. See State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1980) (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Banks v. State, 520 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), review denied, 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1988)); Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1975); Gasset v. State, 490 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986); State v. Copher, 395 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). As this Court stated in Gasset v. State, 490 So. 2d at 98, n. 1:
The prosecutor has great discretion in deciding which charges should be filed and may decide, for a myriad of reasons, not to prosecute on certain charges notwithstanding the fact that sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction thereon.
Furthermore, once the prosecutor has decided what charges should be filed, “... the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the prosecutor in his control over criminal prosecutions.” State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d at 1367, n. 8. The decision herein to prosecute the defendant for a misdemeanor violation instead of a felony violation was clearly within the prosecutor’s discretion and, thus, the County Court properly exercised its jurisdiction over the defendant’s fourth DUI violation.
Accordingly, we affirm the final order of conviction and sentence from the county court and answer the certified question in the negative.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KIO v. State, 624 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…es are even allowed for conduct arising from the same incident. Traditionally, the legislature has left to the prosecutor’s discretion which violations to prosecute and hence which range of penalties to visit upon the offender. See Toledo v. State, 580 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (prosecutors have great discretion to charge a defendant with any crime the evidence shows the defendant to have committed, or any lesser crime). None of the cases cited in the majority opinion stands for the proposition that…
-
Petithomme v. State, 610 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…very beginning. The state acted to remedy its oversight. “[Pjrosecutors have the prosecutorial discretion to charge a defendant with the crime that the evidence establishes that the defendant committed, or any lesser crime thereof.” Toledo v. State, 580 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA1991). Thus, the prosecutor acted within his discretion in charging the defendant of first degree murder and in prosecuting this cause. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss the indictme…
-
Hope v. State, 588 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083 or s. 775.084. 3. The death of any human being is guilty of DUI manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. . See Toledo v. State, 580 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). . In a liberal interpretation of constitutional and statutory requirements this court has held the prosecutor is not required to administer an oath, or personally interview the material witnesses in order to swear to facts alleg…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cain, 381 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1980)
- Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1975)
- Alfonso v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Coldwell Banker, 490 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Gasset v. State, 490 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- State v. Copher, 395 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Michiah Banks v. State, 520 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)