"-
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
r-
STATE OF FLORIDA,
)
Petitioner,
j
v.
CASE NO:
LEON CECIL WILKINS,
72,065
1
Respondent.
)
EETIlIJIONERS BRIEF ON THE MERITS
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH
Attorney General
Tallahassee, Florida
ROBERT S . JAEGERS
Assistant Attorney General
111 G e o r g i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 4
West P a l m B e a c h , F l o r i d a 3 3 4 0 1
(305) 837-5062
Counsel for P e t i t i o n e r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CITATIONS
i i , iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
2 - 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
4 - 5
ARGUMENT
WHETHER A PRESUMPTION OF PROSECUTORIAL
VINDICTIVENESS ARISES WHEN THE STATE
AMENDS AN INFORMATION BY ENHANCING
CHARGES AFTER A MISTRIAL RESULTING
FROM A DEADLOCKED JURY OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE NOT INVOLVING THE ASSERTION
BY THE ACCUSED OF A PROTECTED RIGHT.
CONCLUSION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASE
PAGE
6
B e r r y v . S t a t e , 458 S o . 2 d 1155
( F l a . 1 s t DCA 1 9 8 4 )
B l a c k l e d g e v . P e r r y 417 U.S. 2 1 , 94 S . C t . 2098
~ (1974)
40 L . E ~ . z628
Murphy v . S t a t e , 453 N . E .
2d 219 ( 1 9 8 3 )
N o r t h C a r o l i n a v . P e a r c e , 395 U.S. 7 1 1 , 89 S . C t .
2 0 7 2 , 23 L . E d . 2 d 659 ( 1 9 6 9 )
S t a t e v . B a i l e y , 1 2 F.L.W. 1339
( F l a . 4 t h DCA, May 2 7 , 1 9 8 7 )
S t a t e v . Bloom, 497 S o . 2 d ( F l a . 1 9 8 6 )
S t a t e v . B u r n e t t , 468 S o . 2 d 1119
( F l a . 4 t h DCA 1 9 8 5 )
S t a t e v . L e w i s , 463 S o . 2 d 5 6 1
( F l a . 2nd dCA 1 9 8 5 )
S t a t e v . S t e l l , 407 S o . 2 d 642
( F l a . 4 t h DCA 1 9 8 1 )
S t a t e v . 3 e l t o n , 468 S o . 2 d 495
( F l a . 5 t h DCA 1 9 8 5 )
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o r o n a , 804 F . 2 d 1 5 6 8 , r e h e a r i n g
d e n i e d . 812 F . 2 d 1415 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1987)
c e r t i o i a r i d e n i e d , 481 'u. S .
, 107 s : c ~ .
1 9 8 6 , 95 L . E d . 2 d 503 (1987)U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Goodwin, 457 U.S. 3 6 8 , 1 0 2 S . C t .
2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 ( 1 9 8 2 )
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . J a i m s o n , 505 F . 2 d 407
(D.C. C i r . 1974)
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Mays, 738 F . 2 d 1 1 8 8
( 1 1 t h C i r . 1984)
S t a t e v. W i l k i n s .
So.2d
.
1 3 F.L.W.
TABLE OF CITATIONS (continued)
Weed v. State, 411 So.2d 863, 865
( F l a . 1982)
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Fla. R. Crim. P., Rule 3.191(~)(4)
United States Constitution, Amendment 5
FLORIDA STATUTES
5812.12(2) ( c )
5812.13(2) (a)
iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
P e t i t i o n e r , t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a , was t h e a p p e l l a n t
i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Appeal of t h e S t a t e of F l o r i d a , and
t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a u t h o r i t y a t t r i a 1 , a n d Respondent, Leon C e c i l
W i l k i n s , was t h e a p p e l l e e i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court and t h e def e n d a n t i n t h e C r i m i n a l D i v i s i o n o f t h e C i r c u i t Court of t h e
F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t o f F l o r i d a , i n and f o r Palm Beach
County, t h e Honorable R i c h a r d B . Burk, p r e s i d i n g .
The p a r t i e s
h e r e i n a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e y a p p e a r e d a t t r i a l and a s t h e y
a p p e a r b e f o r e t h i s Honorable C o u r t .
The f o l l o w i n g symbol w i l l be u s e d :
"R"
Record on Appeal
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
T h i s i s an a p p e a l by t h e S t a t e from an o r d e r of
t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s
t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . ( R 3 0 ) .
The s t a t e d b a s i s o f t h e
o r d e r was t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g :
That t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d no j u s t i f i a b l e
grounds f o r enhancing t h e c h a r g e s i n
t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n .
The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t a m i s t r i a l was g r a n t e d on o r
about August 5 , 1985, i n a t r i a l upon t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
which c h a r g e d a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y and b a t t e r y .
(R 8 , 13, 2 4 ) .
The d e f e n s e Motion t o D i s m i s s r e p r e s e n t s t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e
m i s t r i a l was t h a t t h e j u r y was d e a d l o c k e d . ( R 24) .
The i n -
f o r m a t i o n was amended on August 1 1 , 1986, by t h e a d d i t i o n o f
t h e words "and i n t h e commission of s a i d Robbery d i d u s e a
d e a d l y weapon, t o - w i t : a r o c k . " ( R 1 9 ) .
T h i s changed t h e
s t a t u t e from § 8 1 2 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) t o § 8 1 2 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) .
(R 13, 1 9 ) .
By a n unsworn m o t i o n , d a t e d August 1 2 , 1986, t h e
d e f e n d a n t moved t o d i s m i s s t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . ( R 2 3 - 2 4 ) .
An unsworn memorandum of law and f a c t accompanied t h e Motion
t o Dismiss. (R 25-29).
No t e s t i m o n y o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e was
p r e s e n t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t i n s u p p o r t of h i s motion.
The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n , t h e S t a t e f i l e d
a n o t i c e of a p p e a l ( R 3 1 ) , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d a
continuance u n t i l 9 0 days a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of appeal
a
e n t e r s i t s mandate. ( R 3 6 ) .
The issuance of t h e mandate has
been s t a y e d pending review by t h i s Court.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
There i s no double j e o p a r d y i s s u e p r e s e n t .
There
was no i m p e r m i s s i b l e m o t i v e found on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e
A t t o r n e y i n f i l i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n .
f e n d a n t ' s motion was n o t v e r i f i e d .
A l s o , t h e de-
The t r i a l j u d g e ' s o r d e r
was b a s e d upon a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t j u s t i f i a b l e grounds t o "enchance" t h e c h a r g e s i n t h e amended i n f o r mation.
The t r i a l j u d g e ' s o r d e r i n f r i n g e s upon t h e S t a t e
Attorney's exclusive d i s c r e t i o n t o b r i n g charges a g a i n s t
c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s and v i o l a t e s t h e s e p a r a t i o n of j u d i c i a l
and e x e c u t i v e powers.
The d i c t a i n t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Weed v . S t a t e ,
4 1 1 So.2d 863, 865 ( F l a . 1 9 8 2 ) , seems t o i n d i c a t e t h e r e i s a
@
presumption o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l v i n d i c t i v e n e s s which a r i s e s
whenever t h e s t a t e amends a n i n f o r m a t i o n by enhancing c h a r g e s
a f t e r a m i s t r i a l , even i f t h e m i s t r i a l does n o t r e s u l t from
t h e a s s e r t i o n by t h e a c c u s e d of any r i g h t , b u t r a t h e r from a
deadlocked j u r y .
The b a s e s of t h i s d i c t a , which was approved
by t h i s Court a s s t a t e d i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e F i r s t D i s t r i c t
Court of Appeals i n S t a t e v . Weed, 373 So.2d 42, a t 4 4 ( F l a .
1 s t DCA 1979) a r e 1969 and 1974 U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court
o p i n i o n s and a 1974 D i s t r i c t of Columbia C i r c u i t o f Appeals
decision.
o f Appeals
I n r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s of t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t Court
t h e presumption h a s been a b o l i s h e d .
The U n i t e d
S t a t e s Supreme Court has denied c e r t i o r a r i , l e a v i n g t h e
a
Eleventh C i r c u i t d e c i s i o n s a s c u r r e n t F e d e r a l p r e c e d e n t ,
and which would r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l of t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
ARGUMENT
POINT ON APPEAL
WHETHER A PRESUMPTION OF PROSECUTORIAL
VINDICTIVENESS ARISES WHEN THE STATE
AMENDS AN INFORMATION BY E N H A N C I N G
CHARGES AFTER A MISTRIAL RESULTING
FROM A DEADLOCKED JURY OR OTHER C I R CUMSTANCE NOT INVOLVING THE ASSERTION
BY THE ACCUSED OF A PROTECTED R I G H T .
A m i s t r i a l f o l l o w i n g a hung j u r y i s n o t an e v e n t
which t e r m i n a t e s o r i g i n a l j e o p a r d y , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e
i s no double c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n v o l v i n g t h e m i s t r i a l upon t h e
o r i g i n a l information.
ment 5 ;
a
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , Amend-
B e r r y v . S t a t e , 458 So.2d 1155 ( F l a . 1 s t DCA 1 9 8 4 ) ;
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Corona, 804 F.2d 1568, r e h e a r i n g d e n i e d ,
812 F.2d 1415 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , c e r t i o r a r i d e n i e d , 481 U.S.
Having a c l e a n s t a t e b e f o r e him a f t e r t h e m i s t r i a l ,
t h e S t a t e A t t o r n e y was a u t h o r i z e d t o amend t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
by f i l i n g a s i g n e d and sworn t o "Amended I n f o r m a t i o n " .
20).
( R 19-
There was no j u r y sworn s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e m i s t r i a l .
The speedy t r i a l r u l e was n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
decision.
Because t h e "amended" i n f o r m a t i o n was s i g n e d and
sworn t o , l e a v e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t n e c e s s a r y .
v . S t e l l , 407 So.2d 642 ( F l a . 4 t h DCA 1 9 8 1 ) .
State
The filing of a signed and sworn to amended information has the legal effect on the original information of a
nolle prosequi.
5th DCA 1985).
Stell; State v. Belton, 468 So.2d 495 (Fla.
The decision to nolle prossequi an infor-
mation is vested solely in teh discretion of the State. State
v. Burnett, 468 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
None of the grounds enumerated in Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.190(c) are present sub judice. The defendant claimed a violation of double jeopardy rules, prosecutorial vindictiveness, and racial motivation, but cited
only cases involving de novo trials after appeal. North
Carolinav.Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d
59 (1969); Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098,
•
40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974); and a case where the defendant had
moved for a mistrial at the initial trial because of a due
process violation, to wit: Murphy v. State, 453 N.E.2d 219
(Ind. 1983).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the trial judge's
stated reason for granting the motion was not based upon any
impermissible motive on the part of the State Attorney, such
as bad faith, race, religion, or a desire to prevent the exercise of the defendant's constitutional rights. Rather, the
trial judge assumed a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness had arisen merely because the jury had become deadlocked
and the State had amended the charges.
That the State presented no justifiable
grounds for enhancing the charges in
the Amended Information.
The District Court below affirmed solely upon the
basis of this Court's dicta in Weed v. State, 411 So.2d 863,
865 (Fla. 1982), which approves the First District's opinion
in State v. Weed, 373 So.2d 42, at 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
which cites to the above United States Supreme Court cases
and to United States v. Jamison, 505 F.2d 407 (D.C. Cir.
1974).
In Jamison, the defense obtained a mistrial based
upon ineffective assistance of counsel in a second-degree
murder trial and the government subsequently re-indicted the
defendants for first-degree murder.
•
The court in Jamison was
rightly concerned that permitting an increase in charges,
without justification, after the defendant asserted his right
to effective assistance of counsel and obtained a mistrial,
would have a chilling affect upon defendants' due process
rights. However, the instant case does not involve such an
assertion by Wilkins.
The mistrial was not obtained by either
party, but was the result of a deadlocked jury.
Also, the deadlocked jury meant that the initial
trial was not completed.
Therefore United States v. Goodwin,
457 U.S. 368, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982), where prosecutors increased the charges after the defendant asserted his
right to trial by a jury, does not support Wilkins.
Below,
Respondent c i t e d Goodwin as s u p p o r t f o r h i s argument t h a t
a
" a p p l i c a t i o n of a presumption of v i n d i c t i v e n e s s
[is]
t h e r e f o r e more j u s t i f i a b l e , i n a charging d e c i s i o n made a f t e r
t r i a l , r a t h e r than b e f o r e t r i a l . "
Court r e a l l y wrote:
The United S t a t e s Supreme
"Thus a change i n t h e charging d e c i s i o n
made a f t e r an i n i t i a l t r i a l i s completed i s much more l i k e l y
t o be improperly motivated than i s a p r e t r i a l d e c i s i o n . " 457
U.S. a t 381, 73 L.Ed.2d a t 85.
The presumption of p r o s e c u t o r i a l
v i n d i c t i v e n e s s d e s c r i b e d i n Goodwin does n o t a r i s e where t h e
t r i a l i s n o t completed because of a j u r y deadlock over which
n e i t h e r had c o n t r o l .
A p r o s e c u t o r should remain f r e e
b e f o r e t r i a l t o e x e r c i s e t h e broad
d i s c r e t i o n e n t r u s t e d t o him t o
determine t h e e x t e n t of t h e s o c i e t a l
i n t e r e s t i n p r o s e c u t i o n . An i n i t i a l
d e c i s i o n should n o t f r e e z e f u t u r e
conduct.
457 U.S. a t 382, 73 L.Ed.2d a t 86.
The United S t a t e s Supreme Court t h e n n o t e d t h a t pros e c u t o r s a r e n o t i n f a l l i b l e , and t h a t p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s o f t e n
g i v e r i s e t o t h e use of " a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e s , " o r e l s e t h e proc e s s could n o t s u r v i v e .
I d . U.S.
378 n . l O , 382 n . 1 4 , L.Ed.2d 84
n . l O , 86 n.14.
Recent c a s e s from t h e United S t a t e s Court of Appeals
f o r t h e Eleventh C i r c u i t s p e c i f i c a l l y h o l d t h e r e i s no p r e sumption of p r o s e c u t o r i a l v i n d i c t i v e n e s s from t h e adding of
charges to an indictment following a mistrial caused by a
c
jury deadlock. United States v. Corona, 804 F.2d 1568,
rehearing denied, 812 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir. 1987), certiorari denied, 481 U.S.
107 S.Ct. 1896, 95 L.Ed.2d 502
(1987); United States v. Mays, 738 F.2d 1188 (11th Cir.
1984).
As the District Court stated below, Mays represents
the modern, enlightened view on the issue of prosecutorial
vindictiveness under circumstances such as are present in
the instant case.
State v. Wilkins, - So.2d
, 13 F.L.W.
, (Fla. 4th DCA March 2, 1988).
Clearly, there is no presumption of prosecutorial
vindictiveness. The defendant's unsworn motion and memorandum
presented no evidence to the trial court support a finding of
n
prosecutorial vindictiveness, had one ever been made.
There-
fore the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss
on the basis that the State had presented no grounds for enhancing the charges where the defendant had made no threshold
showing of facts to support his Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)
mot ion.
Also, the defendant and his counsel failed to swear
to the motion to dismiss and to the memorandum of law, both of
which contained numerous allegations of fact. Therefore, the
motion was not properly considered by the trial court. Fla.
R.Crim. P., Rule 3.191(~)(4);
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1985).
State v. Lewis, 463 So.2d 561
The S t a t e must be a f f o r d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t i t s case i n a t r i a l .
I t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n of a t r i a l
judge t o determine what charges should o r should n o t be
brought a g a i n s t a c r i m i n a l defendant.
That i s w i t h i n t h e
s o l e executive d i s c r e t i o n of t h e S t a t e A t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e .
S t a t e v . Bloom, 497 So.2d 2 ( F l a . 1986).
I f , a f t e r t h e S t a t e has p r e s e n t e d i t s c a s e , and a
proper motion i s made, then t h e t r i a l c o u r t may determine i f
a prima f a c i e c a s e e x i s t s , S t a t e v . B a i l e y , 1 2 F.L.W. 1339
( F l a . 4th DCA, May 2 7 , 1 9 8 7 ) , n o t b e f o r e .
I n t h i s case t h e
t r i a l judge exceeded h i s a u t h o r i t y and stepped over t h e l i n e
s e p a r a t i n g j u d i c i a l and executive powers.
reversed.
His order must be
CONCLUSION
This Court should adopt the modern, enlightened
view on the issue of prosecutorial vindictiveness as represented in United States v. Mays and United States v.
Corona, supra.
The District Court's decision affirming the trial
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended information should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH
Attorney General
Assistant ~ t t u n e~gn-neral
~
111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 204
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(305) 837-5062
Counsel for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been sent
by courier to Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender,
9th Floor, Governmental Center, 301 N. Olive Avenue, West
Palm Beach, Florida 33401, this
4th
day of April, 1988.
Of Counsel