Tifford v. State, 75--116
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 91 |
| Parties | Arthur W. TIFFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 75--116,75--116 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1976 |
Page 91
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied July 9, 1976.
Page 92
Robert L. Achor, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Arthur W. Tifford, was one of the defendants in an information which charged him in two counts. Other defendants were charged in other counts. Defendant Tifford was charged with conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: accessory after the fact and with being an accessory after the fact to the crimes of grand larceny, forgery and uttering forged instruments. He was found guilty by a jury, with adjudication and sentence entered thereon. This appeal followed.
Two points are presented: (1) The court erred when it denied Tifford's motion for severance from the other defendants. (2) The court erred when it denied Tifford's motion for relief for misjoinder. The points should logically be discussed in the reverse order and, therefore, we shall proceed with the point claiming that there was a misjoinder of defendants.
Rule 3.150(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides:
'(b) Joinder of Defendants. Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information upon which they are to be tried:
'(1) when each defendant is charged with accountability for each offense charged;
'(2) when each defendant is charged with conspiracy and some of the defendants are also charged with one or more offenses alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; or
'(3) when, even if conspiracy is not charged and all defendants are not charged in each county, it is alleged that the several offenses charged were part of a common scheme or plan.
'Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.'
The principal defendant at the trial of the several defendants was S. K. Bronstein who was charged in numerous counts with the appropriation of money belonging to Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corporation, an institution in Miami, Florida. In substance, those counts charged that Bronstein, the President of the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corporation, wrongfully caused that hospital to issue twenty-one (21) checks to various payees, which were fraudulently endorsed and cashed and the proceeds of which were appropriated by Bronstein.
The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1 provide for one trial in instances
Page 93
involving related offenses as well as those instances involving several defendants charged with the same offense. Certainly, conspiracy to cover up a larceny is a related offense. In Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1974, 298 So.2d 433, 434, the rule is stated that joinder is not proper unless:'. . . the charging document makes one of the following allegations: (a) each defendant is charged with accountability for each offense, or (b) each defendant is charged with conspiracy, or (c) the several offenses charged are part of a common scheme or plan. The answer lies in the interpretation of Rules 3.150(b) and 3.152(b), RCrP, and authorities construing similar federal rules.'
We hold that the joinder of defendant Tifford with defendant Bronstein has not been shown to be error.
The second point presented urges error upon the denial of defendant Tifford's motion for severance.
CrPR 3.152(b), concerning 'Severance of defendants,' in pertient part, provides:
'(1) On motion of the State or a defendant, the court shall order a severance of defendants and separate trials:
'(i) before trial, upon a showing that such order is necessary to protect a defendant's right to a speedy trial, or is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one or more defendants . . .'
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Wainwright, No. 59732
...1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1977), and cert. denied, 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977); Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 327 6 See Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1482, 1483 (1968). 7 See id. at 1......
-
Tenneboe v. Tenneboe, No. 88-0503
...misconduct are made by the spouse challenging a marital agreement. See Paris v. Paris, 412 So.2d at 954; Moss-Jacober v. Moss, 334 So.2d at 91. See also Baker v. Baker, 394 So.2d at In the present case, the husband brought an almost instant challenge to the property settlement agreement fol......
-
Tifford v. Wainwright, No. 78-1741
...raised the same misjoinder issues in his appeal, and the Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (1976), but addressed only state law issues. The Supreme Court of Florida then denied Tifford's petition for a writ of certiorari. Tifford v. St......
-
Scheel v. State, s. 76-919 and 76-963
...was essential to a presentation of the case against these defendants. See Manson v. State, 88 So.2d 272 (Fla.1956); Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA No Florida authority for reversal is presented upon appellants' fifth point. We co......
-
Brown v. Wainwright, No. 59732
...1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1977), and cert. denied, 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977); Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 327 6 See Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1482, 1483 (1968). 7 See id. at 1......
-
Tenneboe v. Tenneboe, No. 88-0503
...misconduct are made by the spouse challenging a marital agreement. See Paris v. Paris, 412 So.2d at 954; Moss-Jacober v. Moss, 334 So.2d at 91. See also Baker v. Baker, 394 So.2d at In the present case, the husband brought an almost instant challenge to the property settlement agreement fol......
-
Tifford v. Wainwright, No. 78-1741
...raised the same misjoinder issues in his appeal, and the Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (1976), but addressed only state law issues. The Supreme Court of Florida then denied Tifford's petition for a writ of certiorari. Tifford v. St......
-
Scheel v. State, s. 76-919 and 76-963
...was essential to a presentation of the case against these defendants. See Manson v. State, 88 So.2d 272 (Fla.1956); Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA No Florida authority for reversal is presented upon appellants' fifth point. We co......