Sadler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sadler v. State

333 So. 2d 69, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14483

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1976

DocketNo. Z-337

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 333 So. 2d 69 (Sadler 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

Sadler v. State, 333 So. 2d 69, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14483 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BOYER, Chief Judge.

Appellant, an inmate at the Union Correctional Institute at Raiford, received a two year sentence for possession of a weapon by a State prisoner. The sentence was imposed pursuant to appellant’s plea of nolo contendere which was entered with the express reservation of the right to appeal the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss the information. Appellant argues on appeal, as he did in his motion to dismiss, that by virture of his special administrative confinement by prison authorities, the State’s attempt to further punish him for possessing a weapon was in contravention of the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.

After careful consideration of the case authority cited to us by the parties, we have concluded that the double jeopardy provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions do not apply. We agree with the following decision reached by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeal: “Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner following his apprehension in connection with the commission of a crime is [sic] not a bar to subsequent prosecution for the crime in a court of competent jurisdiction.” United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (3rd Cir. 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 841, 92 S. Ct. 136, 30 L.Ed.2d 76 (1971); see also Gilchrist v. United States, 427 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1970). Virtually every other federal circuit has reached the same conclusion. Hamrick v. Peyton, 349 F.2d 370 (4th Cir. 1965); Gibson v. United States, 161 F.2d 973 (6th Cir. 1947); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Salazar, 505 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969); Hutchison v. United States, 450 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971).

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.

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

BOYER, Chief Judge.

Appellant, an inmate at the Union Correctional Institute at Raiford, received a two year sentence for possession of a weapon by a State prisoner. The sentence was imposed pursuant to appellant’s plea of nolo contendere which was entered with the express reservation of the right to appeal the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss the information. Appellant argues on appeal, as he did in his motion to dismiss, that by virture of his special administrative confinement by prison authorities, the State’s attempt to further punish him for possessing a weapon was in contravention of the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.

After careful consideration of the case authority cited to us by the parties, we have concluded that the double jeopardy provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions do not apply. We agree with the following decision reached by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeal: “Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner following his apprehension in connection with the commission of a crime is [sic] not a bar to subsequent prosecution for the crime in a court of competent jurisdiction.” United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (3rd Cir. 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 841, 92 S. Ct. 136, 30 L.Ed.2d 76 (1971); see also Gilchrist v. United States, 427 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1970). Virtually every other federal circuit has reached the same conclusion. Hamrick v. Peyton, 349 F.2d 370 (4th Cir. 1965); Gibson v. United States, 161 F.2d 973 (6th Cir. 1947); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Salazar, 505 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Apker, 419 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1969); Hutchison v. United States, 450 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971).

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 So. 2d 69, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadler-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack