THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN MATHEWS, ET AL., 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.
Florida appealed dismissals of DUI charges where defendants had previously pled guilty to the lesser civil traffic infraction of careless driving. The court held that double jeopardy does not bar prosecution for DUI after a guilty plea to careless driving because the offenses contain distinct elements under the Blockburger test.
The court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that double jeopardy does not bar DUI prosecution following a guilty plea to careless driving. Because the DUI charges require proof of elements not contained in the civil traffic offenses and vice versa, the prosecutions are not barred under the Blockburger test.
[1] The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar prosecution of a criminal traffic offense when the offender has previously pleaded guilty to a civil traffic infraction that is an…
[2] The Blockburger test, as re-embraced by the Supreme Court, requires that prosecutions for different offenses are permissible if each offense requires proof of an element…
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“WHETHER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE BARS TRIAL OF AN OFFENDER ON A CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OFFENSE WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC INFRACTION ON WHICH THE STATE WILL RELY TO PROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OFFENSE.”
The certified question of great public importance presented to the appellate court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn each case, a defendant was charged with both careless driving (traffic infraction) and DUI under Florida law. Each defendant pled guilty to the car…
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 Careless Driving cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In each of these cases, the State of Florida asks this court to review a final order of the Dade County Court dismissing the charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The county court, in each instance, certified the following question as being of great public importance:
WHETHER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE BARS TRIAL OF AN OFFENDER ON A CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OFFENSE WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC INFRACTION ON WHICH THE STATE WILL RELY TO PROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OFFENSE.
We accept jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9.160, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We answer the certified question in the negative, and reverse. We observe that our sister courts considering this issue have likewise each reached a similar conclusion. State v. Murray, 644 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); State v. Dean, 637 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State v. Coupal, 626 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Knowles, 625 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
The defendant in each of the cases under review was charged with Careless Driving, for which he received a traffic citation, and also charged with DUI pursuant to section 316.193(1), Florida Statutes (1993). Each defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving and paid the standard fine for the citation. Subsequently each filed a Motion to Dismiss the pending DUI prosecution. Each Motion to Dismiss was based upon the argument that as a consequence of the plea to the civil traffic infraction, prosecution for DUI was barred by double jeopardy and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.151(e). Following argument, the trial court in each case, entered an order granting defendant’s Motions to Dismiss.
As outlined in Murray, Dean, and Knowles, United States v. Dixon, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) has re-embraced the traditional “Blockbur ger” test. Because the DUI charges in the instant eases require proof of elements not contained in the previous civil traffic offenses and the civil traffic offenses require proof of elements not contained in the DUI charges, the prosecutions for DUI are not barred. — U.S. at —-—, 113 S.Ct. at 2856-69.
Accordingly, the cases under review are reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Murray, 644 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- State v. Coupal, 626 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State v. Dean, 637 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)