STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT EVANS, 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 the dismissal of aggravated stalking charges in Orange County after the defendant was convicted of similar charges in Osceola County. The district court reversed the dismissal, holding that the charges arising from different locations and times do not constitute double jeopardy and that the record did not support dismissal without proper factual findings.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the charges were properly maintainable because the alleged stalking incidents occurred at different times and in different counties, and therefore did not violate double jeopardy principles. The court noted the record lacked sufficient factual findings to support dismissal.
[1] Consolidation of criminal cases in one county does not preclude severance and transfer of a case back to its original county of venue.
[2] A dismissal of charges on double jeopardy grounds requires a substantiated basis in the record.
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“The dates of the crimes alleged in the two counties are not identical and while the facts alleged are virtually the same they are alleged to have occurred in different counties.”
The court's rationale for distinguishing the charges and rejecting the double jeopardy argument based on different times and locations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Evans was charged with aggravated stalking in both Orange County and Osceola County against the same victim. The cases were initially consolida…
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 Severance Of Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing charges against appellee.
Appellee was charged in Orange County with aggravated stalking. He was also charged in Osceola County with aggravated stalking of the same alleged victim. Without objection from appellant the court in Orange County granted appellee’s motion to consolidate the eases in Osceola County, which counties are both within the ninth judicial circuit. Later, the Osceola County judge ordered the Orange County case severed from the Osceola case and transferred it back to Orange County for the reason that the case would “not result in plea as originally intended.”
Appellant went to trial and was convicted in Osceola County and then moved to dismiss the Orange County case on double jeopardy grounds. The Orange County judge granted that motion and we reverse that order. There are virtually no facts in the record for us to work with, and the trial judge did not set out the grounds upon which he found that jeopardy had attached in Osceola County on the charges in Orange County. However, reason and the wording of the charging documents cause us to determine that the record does not support the dismissal. The dates of the crimes alleged in the two counties are not identical and while the facts alleged are virtually the same they are alleged to have occurred in different counties. Thus, since the stalkings are alleged to have occurred in different places at different times, it was error to have dismissed the charges. This is not to say that perhaps appellee cannot, with a properly substantiated 3.190(c) motion, obtain a dismissal. As it stands now there is no basis in the record to support such an order of dismissal.
REVERSED.
PETERSON, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eichelberger v. State, 949 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ng Jones encompassed separate time frames. The court concluded that Jones’s arrest for the first crime “concluded the factual event which formed the basis for the arrest and began a separate and distinct factual event.” Id.; see also State v. Evans, 681 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reversing dismissal of aggravated stalking charge on double jeopardy grounds because the charging documents alleged conduct that occurred on different dates in two different counties). Here, the State charged Eichelberger…