STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY DANIEL JONES, 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.
The State of Florida appealed a trial court's dismissal of an information charging Larry Daniel Jones with interference with child custody, arguing that the double jeopardy defense did not bar prosecution despite Jones's prior conviction in Minnesota for a similar offense arising from the same conduct. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida's dual sovereign exception to double jeopardy permits successive prosecutions by different states for the same conduct.
Florida's double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions in Florida and another state for charges arising out of the same conduct. The dual sovereign exception applies equally to state-to-state prosecutions as it does to federal-state prosecutions, and no statutory bar to subsequent prosecutions exists under Florida law.
[1] The dual sovereign exception to double jeopardy applies to prosecutions by different states, not just state and federal prosecutions.
[2] A prosecution in one state does not bar a subsequent prosecution in another state for the same conduct unless a statute dictates otherwise.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the Florida charge is not barred under the dual sovereign exception to double jeopardy, we reverse.”
States the court's holding on the central legal issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones took his son from Florida to Minnesota and concealed the child from the mother. He was charged in Florida with interference with child custody u…
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 Successive Prosecutions cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The State challenges the trial court’s order dismissing an information against Larry Daniel Jones on the basis of double jeopardy. Because the Florida charge is not barred under the dual sovereign exception to double jeopardy, we reverse.
Jones was charged with interference with child custody under section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1993), resulting from an incident where he took his son from Florida to Minnesota and concealed the child from the mother. He raised double jeopardy as a defense to the Florida charge and asserted that he had been convicted in Minnesota of a similar charge based on the same incident. The trial court dismissed the information and the State appealed.
In Booth v. State, 436 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court held that Flori da’s double jeopardy clause did not bar successive prosecutions in Florida and federal courts for charges arising out of the same conduct. The court held this was a matter of prosecutorial discretion that could best be curbed by a statutory bar to subsequent prosecutions. See also Koon v. State, 463 So. 2d 201 (Fla.) (holding successive prosecutions are unconstitutional only if the state is acting merely as a tool of federal authorities), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1031, 105 S.Ct. 3511, 87 L.Ed.2d 641 (1985). Jones argues that Booth is inapplicable because it involved a federal-state context instead of a state-to-state situation. We find no basis for this distinction. See State v. McNab, 642 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (holding that foreign state’s prosecution did not bar subsequent Florida prosecution for same conduct).
As Jones notes in his brief, a number of states have adopted statutes limiting the dual sovereign exception. In Booth, Justice Ehrlich recommended that the legislature consider the adoption of such a statute to limit duplicative prosecutions. 436 So. 2d at 38 (Ehrlich, J., concurring). It appears that the legislature has not acted on this recommendation. Thus, we conclude that Jones’ prosecution in Florida is not barred by the Florida Constitution nor by any enactment of the legislature. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the information and remand for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Busbee v. State, 685 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ereigns” and be punishable by both. State v. McNab, 642 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Only when the state is acting merely as the tool of federal prosecutors can a second prosecution by a second sovereign be deemed unconstitutional. State v. Jones, 668 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), citing Koon v. State, 463 So. 2d 201 (Fla.), cert. denied mem., 472 U.S. 1031, 105 S.Ct. 3511, 87 L.Ed.2d 641 (1985). As this forfeiture provision has been in force since the creation of the FRS in 1970, and has been deemed so im…
-
Chipman v. State, 875 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ted and are not barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the Texas, Florida, and United States constitutions. See United States v. Smith, 757 F. 2d 1161 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Burke, 495 F. 2d 1226 (5th Cir.1974); see also State v. Jones, 668 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); King v. State, 687 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); McNab, 642 So. 2d 41; State v. Booth, 418 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hernandez v. State, 897 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). An act denounced as a crime by two or more state…
Authorities Cited
- Koon v. State, 463 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1985)
- Booth v. State, 436 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1983)
- Young v. Spellman, 472 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1985)
- Geiger v. United States, 472 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. Denton S. McNAB, 642 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)