State v. Booth
| Decision Date | 18 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AF-23,AF-23 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 385 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Donald Robert BOOTH and Bertram Mark Schwartz, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
John D. O'Brien, Panama City, for appellee Booth.
John Steven Berk, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Schwartz.
The State appeals an order dismissing informations filed against appellees Booth and Schwartz on grounds prosecution on such charges would violate the Florida and United States Constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. See U.S.Const.Amend. V; Fla.Const. Art. I § 9. Both the United States and the State of Florida filed charges against appellees after they landed an aircraft loaded with marijuana in excess of 1,000 pounds at Pensacola Airport. The federal indictment contained four counts: Counts I and II alleged conspiracy to possess marijuana in excess of 1,000 pounds and possession with the intent to distribute same, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2; and Counts III and IV alleged conspiracy to import marijuana in excess of 1,000 pounds and importation of same, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 952 and 963, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. The maximum penalty for such offenses was 40 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $125,000. Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(b)(1)(B). Appellees were subsequently tried and adjudicated guilty as charged on all four counts in United States District Court. Appellee Booth was sentenced to two twelve-year and two five-year terms of imprisonment, all to run concurrently, and fined $75,000. Appellee Schwartz was sentenced to two fifteen-year and two five-year terms of imprisonment, all to run concurrently, and fined $100,000.
The state information contained three counts: Count I alleged possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, and Count II, possession with intent to sell same, in violation of Sections 893.13(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes; and Count III alleged importation of in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.135(1)(a). The maximum penalty under Florida law was 40 years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. Appellees' motion to dismiss the state information on double jeopardy grounds was granted by the trial court, who found that the interests to be protected and the penalties to be imposed in the state and federal proceedings were substantially similar.
The general rule under the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" is that a defendant may constitutionally be tried for violations of state and federal laws arising from the same criminal episode. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978). However, a number of states, while recognizing the continued validity of this doctrine, have declined to permit state prosecution following federal prosecution for the same offense where the interests of both sovereigns are substantially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heath v. State
...permissible under the principle of dual sovereignty. People v. Walker, 123 Cal.App. 3d 981, 177 Cal.Rptr. 147 (1981); State v. Booth, 418 So.2d 385 (Fla.App.1982); State v. Brown, 2 Ohio App.3d 321, 441 N.E.2d 1126 (1981); State v. Straw, 626 S.W.2d 286 (Tenn.Cr.App.1981); State v. Glover, ......
-
Chipman v. State
...v. Jones, 668 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); King v. State, 687 So.2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); McNab, 642 So.2d 41; State v. Booth, 418 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hernandez v. State, 397 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). An act denounced as a crime by two or more state sovereignties is an ......
-
Delisi v. Smith, 82-1161
...U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); State v. Booth, 418 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addressing this issue, this court asked for supplementary briefs on the question of whether compelled discovery in a c......