Paul v. State
| Decision Date | 03 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 56140,56140 |
| Citation | 385 So.2d 1371 |
| Parties | Gregory PAUL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect and Doris E. Jenkins, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We here review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal 1 construing Rule 3.151 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the consolidation of related offenses. The district court upheld the trial court's order allowing the pretrial consolidation of three alleged sexual offenses, the first of which occurred approximately one month before the others. Paul seeks review of that decision on the ground that the alleged offenses, though similar in nature, were not "related" within the contemplation of Rule 3.151 and the relevant case law.
In effect, the district court's interpretation of Rule 3.151 permits the consolidation of similar offenses which are unrelated in terms of time or sequence. We reverse, and adopt as our opinion Judge Smith's well reasoned dissent in the case below insofar as it relates to Rule 3.151 and the consolidation of related offenses. We make no comment on that portion of Judge Smith's dissent which discusses the so-called "Williams Rule" Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) of admissibility. 2
The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Since the district court's decision in the present case does not conflict with any decision of a district court of appeal or this Court, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this cause. The district court addressed the issue of whether the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for consolidation in light of the particular facts of this case. It properly did not consider whether it would have reached a different result if it were initially deciding the question. Applying the correct principles of law, the district court decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. By accepting jurisdiction and quashing the decision of the district court, the majority is merely substituting its judgment for that of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithers v. Sec'y
...in an episodic sense." Joinder is not warranted where the offenses are unrelated in terms of time or sequence. See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980). There must be a "meaningful relationship" between the charges before permitting them to be tried together. See Ellis v. State, ......
-
Fotopoulos v. State
... ... trial must be considered "in an episodic sense[.] [T]he rules do not warrant joinder or consolidation of criminal charges based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are 'connected' only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both or all instances." Paul [v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting), adopted in part, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.1980).] Courts may consider "the temporal and geographical association, the nature of the crimes, and the manner in which they were committed," Bundy [v. State, 455 ... ...
-
Wright v. State
... ... trial must be considered "in an episodic sense[.] [T]he rules do not warrant joinder or consolidation of criminal charges based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are 'connected' only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both or all instances." Paul [v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) ... Page 1030 ... (Smith, J., dissenting), adopted in part, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.1980) ]. Courts may consider "the temporal and geographical association, the nature of the crimes, and the manner in which they were committed." Bundy ... ...
-
Wright v. State, 98-2326.
...which occurred in one location within a short period of time. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.151(a); Fotopoulos, 608 So.2d at 789. Cf. Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980) (it was improper to allow pretrial consolidation of three alleged sexual offenses that were unrelated in terms of time or sequen......