DON SADLER, 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.
Don Sadler, a prison inmate sentenced to two years for possession of a weapon, appealed his conviction on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that administrative sanctions already imposed by prison officials precluded further criminal prosecution. The court held that administrative sanctions do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution, affirming the conviction.
Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials following apprehension for commission of a crime do not constitute a bar to subsequent prosecution in a court of competent jurisdiction. The double jeopardy provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions do not prevent criminal prosecution following administrative prison discipline.
[1] Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
[2] The double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions do not apply to administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials.
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“Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner following his apprehension in connection with the commission of a crime is [sic] not a bar to subsequent prosecution for the crime in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Establishes the core legal holding that administrative prison discipline does not trigger double jeopardy protections against subsequent criminal prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSadler was an inmate at Union Correctional Institute at Raiford who was charged with possession of a weapon by a state prisoner. He received a two-yea…
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.
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, an inmate at the Union Correctional Institute at Raiford, received a two year sentence for possession of a weapon by a State prisoner. The sentence was imposed pursuant to appellant’s plea of nolo contendere which was entered with the express reservation of the right to appeal the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss the information. Appellant argues on appeal, as he did in his motion to dismiss, that by virture of his special administrative confinement by prison authorities, the State’s attempt to further punish him for possessing a weapon was in contravention of the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
After careful consideration of the case authority cited to us by the parties, we have concluded that the double jeopardy provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions do not apply. We agree with the following decision reached by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeal: “Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner following his apprehension in connection with the commission of a crime is [sic] not a bar to subsequent prosecution for the crime in a court of competent jurisdiction.” United States v. Stuckey, 441 F. 2d 1104, 1105-1106 (3rd Cir. 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 841, 92 S. Ct. 136, 30 L.Ed.2d 76 (1971); see also Gilchrist v. United States, 427 F. 2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1970). Virtually every other federal circuit has reached the same conclusion. Hamrick v. Peyton, 349 F. 2d 370 (4th Cir. 1965); Gibson v. United States, 161 F. 2d 973 (6th Cir. 1947); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F. 2d 680 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Salazar, 505 F. 2d 72 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Apker, 419 F. 2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969); Hutchison v. United States, 450 F. 2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971).
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Larkin v. State, 558 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…kin pled nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal. Because the double jeopardy provisions of the Florida2 and Federal 3 Constitutions do not apply to a judicial proceeding following an administrative proceeding, we affirm. See Sadler v. State, 333 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and cases cited therein. AFFIRMED. DANIEL, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . Section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) provides in pertinent part: All or any part of the gain-time earned by a prisoner according to the provi…
-
State v. Jones, 230 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…uance of the Hudson opinion, two of our sister courts held that double jeopardy protections did not apply to a judicial proceeding following an administrative proceeding. See Larkin v. State, 558 So. 2d 486, 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sadler v. State, 333 So. 2d 69, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Larkin contained no analysis and merely relied on Sadler. 558 So. 2d at 487. Sadler relied on federal circuit court opinions. 333 So. 2d at 69. Only one of our sister courts has written post-Hudson on the issue presented he…
-
Gibson v. State, 527 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Sadler v. State, 333 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1967)
- Hutchison v. United States, 450 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971)
- Gilchrist v. United States, 427 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Welton Hamrick v. Peyton, 349 F.2d 370 (4th Cir. 1965)
- United States v. Salazar, 505 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1974)
- Gibson v. United States, 161 F.2d 973 (6th Cir. 1947)
- United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir. 1971)
- Morales v. Deegan, 404 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1971)
- Chandler v. United States, 404 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1971)