GEORGE HERTZSCHUCH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Hertzschuch appeals a circuit court's dismissal of his petition for writ of prohibition, arguing that trying him on four separate DUI counts arising from damage to four vehicles during a single continuous driving episode would violate double jeopardy. The Third District affirmed, holding that multiple DUI convictions are permissible for injuries or damages to separate victims/property in one driving episode.
Multiple DUI convictions are constitutionally permissible for injuries or damages to separate victims or property in a single driving episode. The court applied the Florida Supreme Court's reasoning in Melbourne v. State, holding that a DUI driver may receive multiple convictions for each separate victim or, as here, for property damage to each separate vehicle.
[1] A defendant may be convicted of multiple counts of driving under the influence arising from a single continuous driving episode where property damage occurs to multiple v…
[2] The Florida Supreme Court has held that a driver may receive multiple convictions for driving under the influence arising from injury to each of multiple victims.
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“a DUI driver may receive multiple convictions arising from injury to each of multiple victims”
Establishes the principle adopted from Melbourne v. State that multiple convictions are permissible for separate victims in a single driving episode
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHertzschuch operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and struck four parked vehicles on the street in one continuous driving maneuver, …
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 Multiple Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
George Hertzsehuch appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of prohibition in which he contended that it would be double jeopardy for the county court to try him on four counts of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages with property damage (to four separate vehicles) during one continuous driving episode [DUI].
We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition. The information charging the four DUI counts alleged that Hertzschuch operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and while doing so did damage to four vehicles parked on the street, in violation of section 316.193(3), Florida Statutes (1995).
All four vehicles were struck in one driving maneuver, with Hertzschuch’s vehicle coming to a stop a short distance from the last vehicle struck. Hertzschuch moved to dismiss the information, alleging a violation of his double jeopardy rights, contending that he would be punished multiple times for the same offense. The county court denied his motion to dismiss and he then petitioned the circuit court seeking the issuance of a writ prohibiting the county court from trying him on the four DUI counts.
The circuit court dismissed his petition and he filed this appeal.
While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court undertook to review Melbourne v. State, 655 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), a case in which Melbourne caused the death of two persons and injury of a third in a single driving episode and was convicted of multiple DUI counts. As does Hertzschuch here, Melbourne contended that the multiple convictions arising from one continuous driving episode violate double jeopardy.
The district court rejected the contention. The Florida Supreme Court approved the result, holding that a DUI driver may receive multiple convictions arising from injury to each of multiple victims. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996). Although Hertzschuch is here charged with separate DUI property damage counts, we see no distinction that would lead us to conclude other than the Florida Supreme Court has done in relation to DUI injury to persons.
Accordingly, the circuit court’s dismissal of Hertzschuch’s petition for writ of prohibition is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gove v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 816 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…urther supervised release. As a result, it cannot be said that conditional release was a benefit to Gove, because there was no lawful basis on which conditional release could have been imposed on him. Moreover, in Westlund v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 687 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), this court stated that the Commission’s application of the criteria for conditional release does not constitute a judgment or judicial order to which a prisoner is required or permitted to object. In Westlund, the Commission arg…
-
State v. Miller, 700 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…e can be only one conviction arising from single accident under § 322.24, Fla. Stat., provision governing causing death or serious bodily injury while driving with suspended license), and the Third District Court’s reasoning in Hertzschuch v. State, 687 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), that the Melbourne opinion’s language relating to DUI injury to persons should apply with equal force to DUI damage to property, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. The order of dismissal is REVERSED, and th…
Authorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Jeanie Melbourne v. State, 655 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)