State v. Woodland
| Decision Date | 25 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2083,91-2083 |
| Citation | 602 So.2d 554 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Sally J. WOODLAND, Appellee. 602 So.2d 554, 17 Fla. L. Week. D800 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Patricia G. Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Louise A.D. Jones of Daves and Jones, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR
We grant appellee's motion to correct clerical error and substitute the following opinion in place of the opinion issued on January 8, 1992.
The state appeals an order dismissing a rule to show cause entered by the trial court. We affirm.
Appellee was charged by amended information with one count of vehicular homicide (Count IV), one count of DUI manslaughter (Count V) and one count of felony driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury (Count VI). Appellee entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the lesser offense of felony driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury under Count V with the state nolle prossing Counts IV and VI. In exchange for her plea, appellee was sentenced to five years probation with a special condition that she serve one year incarceration in the county jail. Appellee was required to surrender herself at the county jail on September 1, 1988.
Appellee failed to appear at the county jail on September 1, 1988 and, as a result, the state filed an affidavit of violation of probation the next day. After an extensive manhunt, appellee was extradited from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico on April 13, 1991. On June 13, 1991, the state filed a petition for rule of show cause why appellee "should not be held in contempt of court for willfully and contemptuously disobeying a direct court order," which appellee moved to dismiss.
The trial court granted appellee's motion and found that "the prosecution of a charge of violation of probation and a charge of contempt would, under the circumstances of this case, subject [appellee] to double jeopardy as contemplated by the Federal and State constitution[s]." We agree.
State v. Newell, 532 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), upon which the state relies, can be distinguished from the instant case on two grounds. First, the underlying offense in the instant case (violation of probation) is not an offense against the peace and dignity of the state. A probation violation hearing is not a prosecution for a crime; it is a violation of a court order hearing. Carwise v. State, 449 So.2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Although "the punishment of conduct as contempt of court will not bar the criminal prosecution of the accused for the substantive offense committed by such conduct," Wilson v. State, 122 Fla. 54, 164 So. 846, 847 (1935), both the criminal contempt and the violation of probation solely are based upon appellee's violation of the same court order. The violation of the probation order did not, by itself, constitute a separate substantive crime.
Second, applying the principles set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the two offenses clearly are the same. The supreme court has held that the Blockburger test applies "in the absence of any clearly discernible legislative intent." Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla.1987). The issue before the Carawan court was "whether, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvarez v. State
...community control revocation proceedings because a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution. See State v. Woodland, 602 So.2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The supreme court recognized as much in Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla. 1974), in which it followed Morr......
-
People v. Johnson, B076204
...at p. 508, see also Jones v. U.S. (D.C.1989) 560 A.2d 513, 514; Alfred v. State (Alaska App.1988) 758 P.2d 130, 131; State v. Woodland (Fla.App. 4 Dist.1992) 602 So.2d 554.) The People rely on People v. Patrick (1980) 83 Ill.App.3d 951, 39 Ill.Dec. 451, 404 N.E.2d 1042, an Illinois Appellat......
-
A.T. v. State, 96-01662
...answer would expose him to prosecution for crime different from one of which he was already convicted); see also State v. Woodland, 602 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (violation of probation order does not, by itself, constitute separate substantive crime); Carwise v. State, 449 So.2d 943 (F......
-
N.T. v. State
...which was not contained in the contempt charge, the double jeopardy bar applied. A similar result was reached in State v. Woodland, 602 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), wherein the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury. S......