STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM EDWARD LLEWELLYN, 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 court held that a civil forfeiture proceeding does not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Following the filing of felony charges, a civil forfeiture action was initiated for a vehicle allegedly involved in the crimes. A default judgment of …
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 Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
The state appeals an order dismissing felony charges, including armed burglary of a dwelling and armed false imprisonment. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), the instant criminal prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. We must therefore reverse.
After the felony charges were filed, the Sheriff of Orange County filed a complaint pursuant to section 932.704, Florida Statutes (1995), seeking forfeiture of a 1987 Ford van, allegedly owned by the defendant and involved in the instant criminal charges. When the defendant did not respond to the complaint, a judgment of forfeiture was entered.
The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges, alleging that the judgment obtained in the civil forfeiture action constituted punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all the pending criminal charges. Soon thereafter, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), wherein the Court specifically held that in rem civil forfeiture proceedings are neither “punishment” nor criminal proceedings for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
REVERSED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McELROY, 689 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996) (holding that in rem civil forfeiture proceedings are neither punishment nor criminal proceedings for purposes of the double jeopardy clause) or this court’s decision in State v. Llewellyn, 682 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (same). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. PETERSON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1996)