PATRICK MOORE HECKARD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The circuit court has jurisdiction over both felony and misdemeanor charges arising from the same incident, and consent from the county court is not a prerequisite for exercising this jurisdiction.
Heckard was charged with felony DUI and misdemeanor driving while license suspended, filed in separate informations. He moved to consolidate both char…
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 Consolidation Of Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Patrick Moore Heckard challenges the denial of his petition for writ of prohibition wherein he contested the jurisdiction of the county court. We agree that proper jurisdiction resided in the circuit court and reverse.
Heckard was charged with felony DUI and misdemeanor driving while license suspended. Because the charges were filed in separate informations, jurisdiction for the felony count resided in the circuit court and jurisdiction for the misdemeanor resided in the county court. Heckard appeared in the circuit court and moved to consolidate the two charges in the circuit court. The trial court conditionally permitted the consolidation, subject to the consent of the county court, accepted Heckard’s guilty pleas, and sentenced him on both charges.
Thereafter, Heckard filed a motion in county court to dismiss the misdemeanor charge, citing the ruling by the circuit court and double jeopardy. The county court refused to relinquish jurisdiction. In response, Heckard sought a writ from the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity over county court decisions, to prohibit the county court from imposing a sentence in addition to the sentence imposed by the circuit court. This appeal followed after the denial of relief by the circuit court.
The circuit court’s jurisdiction over both the felony and the misdemeanor charges, which arose out of the same incident, is clear. See §§ 26.012(2)(d), 34.01(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). Consent by the county court was not a prerequisite to the circuit court exercising its jurisdiction. Once Heckard’s motion to consolidate was acted on, the county court was divested of jurisdiction and the circuit court could properly address the pending charges. State v. Coble, 704 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA1998).
We reverse and reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.
PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. W.W., 16 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…arise out of the same circumstances. See Ledlow v. State, 743 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (circuit court had jurisdiction over misdemeanor DUI offense where defendant was also charged with felony driving with suspended license); Heckard v. State, 712 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (circuit court had jurisdiction over misdemeanor driving with suspended license charge where defendant was also charged with felony DUI). W.W. argues that section 26.012(2)(c) mandates a different result where the individual char…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Coble, 704 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)