STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. ROBERT C. SEAL, PETITIONER,
v.
CLIFFORD B. SHEPARD, AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court granted a petition for writ of prohibition against a circuit court judge, preventing prosecution of a defendant in circuit court for a felony when the defendant had already been convicted in county court for a lesser included offense arising from the same conduct, following plea bargaining. The court held that allowing such prosecution would constitute double jeopardy and offend principles of justice.
The court held that such prosecution is prohibited and that double jeopardy attaches to the initial County Court conviction despite any jurisdictional defect in that court, because it is manifestly unjust to allow the State to extract a guilty plea through plea bargaining and then assert lack of jurisdiction to avoid the collateral consequences of that conviction.
[1] A conviction obtained through plea bargaining in a court lacking jurisdiction may still trigger double jeopardy protections if the state induced the plea.
[2] It is manifestly unjust for the state to use plea bargaining to secure a conviction in a lower court and then later assert that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to pre…
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“It is now urged before us that jeopardy did not attach as a result of the conviction in the County Court because that court was without jurisdiction of the matter.”
States the defendant's argument that double jeopardy should not apply due to lack of jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator, Robert C. Seal, entered into a plea bargain arrangement with the assistant state attorney through his court-appointed counsel, pleading g…
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 Former Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In response to Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition filed herein by relator our Rule Nisi issued to which respondent has filed a return.
The facts of this case are virtually identical to those recited in an opinion of our sister court of the Second District, State ex rel. Miller v. Patterson, Fla.App.2d 1973, 284 So. 2d 9, except that in the case sub judice it is apparent that the plea of guilty entered by the relator in the County Court which resulted in his conviction and sentence there was a result of plea bargaining entered into between the assistant state attorney and the relator’s court-appointed counsel. The factual situation being so similar, we see nothing to be accomplished by lengthening this opinion by meticulous recitation of the facts sub jud-ice; but adopt the reasoning and holding of our sister court.
We have carefully read and considered all of the cases cited by respondent and it is easy to understand how he was misled thereby. However, each of those cases predated Waller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1968, 213 So. 2d 623, certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of Florida, 221 So. 2d 749; reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435; again reconsidered by the Second District, 270 So. 2d 26; certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of Florida, 276 So. 2d 489; certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, with dissenting opinion, 414 U.S. 945, 94 S.Ct. 256, 38 L.Ed.2d 168. We find the Waller cases, and State ex rel. Miller v. Patterson, supra, dispositive of the issues here involved.
However, we feel one additional comment to be appropriate. As above recited, it is apparent that relator’s trial and conviction in the County Court, notwithstanding that a felony charge was pending against him in the Circuit Court arising out of the identical set of circumstances, was a result of plea bargaining. It is now urged before us that jeopardy did not attach as a result of the conviction in the County Court because that court was without jurisdiction of the matter. We observe that it is manifestly unjust for the State to extract by plea bargaining a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense in a county court and then assert when the same defendant is being prosecuted in the circuit court for an offense arising out of the identical act that the county court was without jurisdiction and that therefore jeopardy did not attach as an incident to the first conviction and sentence.
The Rule Nisi heretofore issued herein is hereby made absolute; being confident however that in view of our holding herein respondent will take appropriate action to comply herewith we do not deem it necessary to issue our peremptory writ of prohibition.
It is so ordered.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER, J., concur. McCORD, J., concurring specially.
McCORD, Judge
(concurring specially).
Respondent cites State ex rel. Johnson v. Anderson, Fla., 37 So. 2d 910 (1948) in which the Supreme Court held that prohibition would not lie to prevent the County Court of Broward County from trying a game violation case against defendant based upon identical facts for which defendant had already been tried and convicted under a different statute in the Court of Crimes of Dade County. The Supreme Court held that review could be had on appeal. Later the Supreme Court in State v. Grayson, Fla., 90 So. 2d 710, held prohibition would lie where the two prosecutions were in the same court and former jeopardy was shown. In the case sub ju-dice former jeopardy has been shown. The first conviction was in the County Court of Duval County and the prosecution here is in the Circuit Court, Duval County. The State Attorney was and is the prosecuting officer of both courts. Under the circumstances of this case, I consider prohibition will lie and defendant should not be required to again stand trial and be left to the remedy of appeal if again convicted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanfill v. State, 384 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1980)…ively charges a felony, and, if it does defectively charge a felony, whether this defect was waived and cured by the application of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures 3.140(o) and 3.190(c). Receding from its previous decisions in State v. Shepard, 299 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1st DCA 1974), and Holmes v. State, 342 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), the first district rejected the “unlawful-willful” distinction and held that section 316.027 creates but a single crime, that being a felony. The district court based its de…1 / 2
-
Eddy Hawkins v. State, 312 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…ant that citizens, including those accused of crimes, have confidence in their government, particularly the judicial branch.” (302 So. 2d at page 150) We also touched upon the necessity for honesty and candor in State v. Shepard, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 299 So. 2d 644. (See also Lee v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 312 So. 2d 457. Although T agree that the State’s error in the case sub judice was harmless, and therefore does not constitute ground for reversal, the concealment, evasion and lack of candor revealed by…
-
Killearn Props., Inc. v. City OF Tallahassee, 366 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…sions owned by appellant. Unhappily, this case is but another example of the utter disregard with which a government views its sacred obligations to its people. (Bates v. Slaughter, 347 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State ex rel. Seal v. Shepard, 299 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); and Kurlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).) Basic morality, integrity and honesty appear to no longer have any meaning to governments and their agencies. The subject agreements, first verbal, and later reduced to w…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1970)
- Leone Berdina Rosacker v. Rosacker, 90 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1956)
- Cockery v. Ashkenazy, 90 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1956)
- Waller v. State, 213 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Kenneth J. Miller v. The Honorable William A. Patterson, 284 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Anderson, 37 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1948)
- Waller v. State, 270 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- State Ex rel. Dade Cnty. Optometric Ass'n v. S. Miami Vision Serv., 221 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1968)
- Waller v. State, 221 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1968)
- Waller v. Florida, 414 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1973)