Poff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poff v. State

881 So. 2d 564, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6601, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1145

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-1300

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 881 So. 2d 564 (Poff v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poff v. State, 881 So. 2d 564, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6601, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1145 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Poff and Charles Randolph appeal their convictions and sentences for burglary and grand theft, claiming that the double jeopardy clause of the Florida Constitution precluded retrial where a mistrial had previously been granted. Poff additionally argues that admission of collateral crimes evidence and argument at the retrial mandates reversal.

Having reviewed the record from the initial trial, we find that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial in this case. See Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla. 2001)(“[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first ... ”)(quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); Duncan v. State, 525 So.2d 938, 941 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(declining to adopt as a matter of state constitutional law a standard broader than that stated in Kennedy to determine when double jeopardy will bar retrial following a defendant’s motion for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct).

Following a review of the record, we find no Williams¹ rule violation.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Poff and Charles Randolph appeal their convictions and sentences for burglary and grand theft, claiming that the double jeopardy clause of the Florida Constitution precluded retrial where a mistrial had previously been granted. Poff additionally argues that admission of collateral crimes evidence and argument at the retrial mandates reversal.

Having reviewed the record from the initial trial, we find that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial in this case. See Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla. 2001)(“[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first ... ”)(quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); Duncan v. State, 525 So.2d 938, 941 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(declining to adopt as a matter of state constitutional law a standard broader than that stated in Kennedy to determine when double jeopardy will bar retrial following a defendant’s motion for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct).

Following a review of the record, we find no Williams¹ rule violation.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 So. 2d 564, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6601, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poff-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack