From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Knickerbocker

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 25, 1993
616 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1993)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that "a double jeopardy violation will be presumed when the State attempts a successive prosecution" under specific circumstances

Summary of this case from Lee v. State
See 13 Summaries

Opinion

No. 80568.

March 25, 1993.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance; First District — Case Nos. 90-3134 90-3312 (Alachua County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

George F. Schaefer, Gainesville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), which certified the following question of great public importance:

May a sentence for a life felony be enhanced pursuant to the provisions of the habitual offender statute?
Id. at 878. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Consistent with Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1992), we answer in the negative and approve the decision below to the extent it addressed the certified question. We otherwise quash the opinion below and remand for reconsideration in light of State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1993).

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State v. Knickerbocker

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 25, 1993
616 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1993)

holding that "a double jeopardy violation will be presumed when the State attempts a successive prosecution" under specific circumstances

Summary of this case from Lee v. State

rejecting bright-line rule in light of state's strong interest in eliminating sexual abuse of children and children's frequent inability to recall details of abuse

Summary of this case from State v. Douglas C.

rejecting per se rule

Summary of this case from State v. Baldonado

In Dell'Orfano v. State, 616 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1993), the Florida Supreme Court noted that addressing whether a statement of particulars must be provided in child abuse cases, where the dates of the offenses are not specified in detail, implicates "two conflicting public policy concerns."

Summary of this case from Cooper v. Jones

In Dell'Orfano v. State, 616 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court observed that the question of when a statement of particulars must be provided in child abuse cases, where the dates of the offenses are not specified in detail, implicates "two conflicting public policy concerns."

Summary of this case from Rightmire v. Florida

noting that "[c]ommon sense dictates that admitted wrongdoing should not be shielded from prosecution merely because the State is unable to provide greater specificity in an information or indictment"; the court held a trial court, upon proper motion, was required to dismiss an information involving a lengthy period of time [30 months] if the state could not show clearly and convincingly that it had exhausted all reasonable means of narrowing the time frame further

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

noting that "[c]ommon sense dictates that admitted wrongdoing should not be shielded from prosecution merely because the State is unable to provide greater specificity in an information or indictment," the court held that a trial court, upon proper motion, was required to dismiss an information involving a lengthy period of time [30 months] if the State could not show clearly and convincingly that it had exhausted all reasonable means of narrowing the time frame further

Summary of this case from Medina v. McDonough

noting that 27–month time frame is not per se objectionable in a sexual-battery case

Summary of this case from Bettey v. State

In Dell'Orfano, the court considered whether a trial court erred in dismissing an information charging sexual abuse of a child because the State had failed to provide a statement of particulars narrowing the timeframe of the alleged crimes to less than twenty-seven months.

Summary of this case from Easterly v. State

In Dell'Orfano, the supreme court noted, "[C]ommon sense dictates that admitted wrongdoing should not be shielded from prosecution merely because the State is unable to provide greater specificity in an information or indictment."

Summary of this case from Easterly v. State

In Dell'Orfano v. State, 616 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1993), our supreme court held a trial court, upon proper motion, was required to dismiss an information involving a lengthy period of time if the state could not show clearly and convincingly that it had exhausted all reasonable means of narrowing the time frame further.

Summary of this case from Jones v. State

discussing applicable procedure when information or indictment is challenged because it alleges offense was committed at some time within a broad or indefinite period

Summary of this case from Dumas v. State

In Dell'Orfano, the information stated a time frame thirty-five months long, considerably longer than the time span in this case.

Summary of this case from State v. O'Brien
Case details for

State v. Knickerbocker

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. MICHAEL C. KNICKERBOCKER, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Mar 25, 1993

Citations

616 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1993)

Citing Cases

State v. O'Brien

The state appeals from an order dismissing an information, which charged O'Brien with multiple counts of…

Sandoval v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

The state court determined that, because a narrower period was not possible, as a matter of state law the…

33 Citing Cases