State v. Dean, 93-393
| Decision Date | 01 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-393,93-393 |
| Citation | 637 So.2d 355 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1194 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. T. Mitchell DEAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.
John D. O'Brien of O'Brien & Graham, Chartered, Panama City, for appellee.
The state petitioned for discretionary review of an order of the county court dismissing an information charging the respondent with driving under the influence (DUI). In its order the county court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Is prosecution of a criminal traffic offense barred on grounds of double jeopardy because the defendant has paid a fine for a civil traffic infraction and the state, in order to prove an element of the criminal offense, would prove the same conduct constituting the civil infraction offense?
We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.160(e)(2). We answer the certified question in the negative.
The respondent was charged by information with one count of DUI. He moved to dismiss the information on double jeopardy grounds because he had previously paid fines for speeding, disregard of a traffic sign and violation of the open container law, all of which arose from the same incident as the DUI charge. He asserted, and the state conceded, that the prosecution would have to prove the conduct involved in the traffic offenses in order to establish his guilt on the DUI charge. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, but certified the question we address herein.
In Grady v. Corbin, the Supreme Court barred prosecution for reckless manslaughter, second degree-vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent manslaughter and other charges stemming from an alcohol-related accident on double jeopardy grounds where the defendant had previously pled guilty to and was convicted of misdemeanor counts of DUI and failing to keep right of the median arising from the same accident. The court held that double jeopardy prohibits "a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted." Id. at 510, 110 S.Ct. at 2087. However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Murray, 93-2055
...is not barred by double jeopardy. The first and fifth districts have reached the same conclusion in similar cases. See State v. Dean, 637 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State v. Knowles, 625 So.2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA Even if appellee may be prosecuted under Dixon for DUI, he argues that the tr......
-
Fierro v. State, 93-1952
...644 So.2d 342 (Fla.2d DCA 1994) (aggravated stalking and injunction each required proof of elements the other did not); State v. Dean, 637 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (DUI prosecution required proof of elements not contained in previous civil traffic infractions, and civil traffic infract......
-
State v. Mathews, s. 93-964
...this issue have likewise each reached a similar conclusion. State v. Murray, 644 So.2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); State v. Dean, 637 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State v. Coupal, 626 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Knowles, 625 So.2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA The defendant in each of the cas......