STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
KATHLEEN GULLETT, 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 sought prohibition or certiorari to prevent a trial court from ordering a defendant into a drug pretrial intervention program under section 948.08(6). The court denied the State's petition, holding that the statute's mandatory language requires trial court involvement in determining eligibility and that the State failed to establish the exception for drug dealing.
The trial court may order a qualified defendant into the drug pretrial intervention program under section 948.08(6) when the State fails to prove the statutory exception for drug dealing. The statute does not unconstitutionally interfere with the state attorney's prosecutorial obligations because it mandates trial court determination of eligibility, unlike the general pretrial intervention program.
[1] A defendant is eligible for the pretrial substance abuse education and treatment intervention program unless the state demonstrates the defendant was involved in the deal…
[2] The statutory exception to pretrial substance abuse intervention program eligibility requires the state to affirmatively establish the defendant's involvement in dealing…
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“That section excepts otherwise qualified defendants from admission only upon a showing by the state that the defendant was involved in the dealing or selling of controlled substances.”
Establishes that the statute places the burden on the State to prove the exception to eligibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKathleen Gullett was charged with a drug offense and met the statutory criteria for the pretrial substance abuse education and treatment intervention …
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 Judicial Review Of Prosecutorial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida’s petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari is denied. The state concedes that respondent meets the statutory criteria for the pretrial substance abuse education and treatment intervention program as provided in section 948.08(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). That section excepts otherwise qualified defendants from admission only upon a showing by the state that the defendant was involved in the dealing or selling of controlled substances. § 948.08(6)(a), Fla.Stat. The state failed to establish that the exception applied in the instant case.
We reject the state’s argument that we should declare section 948.08(6)(a)-(c) to be an unconstitutional interference with the state attorney’s obligation and right to prosecute violations of Chapter 893 of the Florida Statutes. Appellant’s reliance on Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1982), is misplaced. The supreme court in Cleveland eon- sidered whether a trial court may review a state attorney’s decision to allow admission into a pretrial intervention program and held that the “pretrial diversion decision of the state attorney is prosecutorial in naturé and, thus, is not subject to judicial review.” Id. at 654. However, the Cleveland opinion involved the general pretrial intervention program set forth in section 948.08(2) (previously codified at § 944.025, Fla.Stat. (1979)). Cleveland does not control the instant case because the state attorney sub judice makes no “pretrial diversion decision” for the trial court to review.
The statute proscribing the requirements for the general pretrial intervention program explicitly conditions eligibility on the state’s consent and provides that the state must ultimately determine whether to dismiss the charges or continue prosecution. See § 948.08(2) and (5). In contrast, section 948.08(6) concerning the drug pretrial intervention program does not make the state’s consent a prerequisite to eligibility and mandates that the trial court determine whether to order further treatment, dismiss the charges, or continue prosecution.
PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI denied.
DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. State, 743 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…e State v. Johnston, No. 98-3402 (pending); State v. Scibana, 726 So. 2d 793, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Sclafani, 704 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Gullett, 652 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); State v. Tremblay, 642 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wall v. State, 615 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State v. Zenobia, 614 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Turner v. State, 611 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); State v. Diandre…
-
King v. Ashby Lynn Nelson, 746 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…plays no part in this determination. However, it is apparent from the language of the statute quoted above that the decision to place defendants in the drug pretrial intervention program does not rest solely with the prosecutor. As State v. Gullett, 652 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 663 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1995) explained, the statute “does not make the state’s consent a prerequisite to eligibility and mandates that the trial court determine whether to order further treatment, dismiss the charges or con…
-
Austin v. State, 746 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1982); State v. Gullett, 652 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ophelia Johnson Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1982)