State v. Llewellyn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Llewellyn

682 So. 2d 1242, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12294, 1996 WL 673345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2167

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 682 So. 2d 1242 (State v. Llewellyn) 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

State v. Llewellyn, 682 So. 2d 1242, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12294, 1996 WL 673345 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ANTOON, Judge.

The state appeals an order dismissing felony charges, including armed burglary of a dwelling and armed false imprisonment. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), the instant criminal prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. We must therefore reverse.

After the felony charges were filed, the Sheriff of Orange County filed a complaint pursuant to section 932.704, Florida Statutes (1995), seeking forfeiture of a 1987 Ford van, allegedly owned by the defendant and involved in the instant criminal charges. When the defendant did not respond to the complaint, a judgment of forfeiture was entered.

The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges, alleging that the judgment obtained in the civil forfeiture action constituted punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all the pending criminal charges. Soon thereafter, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), wherein the Court specifically held that in rem civil forfeiture proceedings are neither “punishment” nor criminal proceedings for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

REVERSED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ANTOON, Judge.

The state appeals an order dismissing felony charges, including armed burglary of a dwelling and armed false imprisonment. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), the instant criminal prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. We must therefore reverse.

After the felony charges were filed, the Sheriff of Orange County filed a complaint pursuant to section 932.704, Florida Statutes (1995), seeking forfeiture of a 1987 Ford van, allegedly owned by the defendant and involved in the instant criminal charges. When the defendant did not respond to the complaint, a judgment of forfeiture was entered.

The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges, alleging that the judgment obtained in the civil forfeiture action constituted punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all the pending criminal charges. Soon thereafter, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), wherein the Court specifically held that in rem civil forfeiture proceedings are neither “punishment” nor criminal proceedings for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

REVERSED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 So. 2d 1242, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12294, 1996 WL 673345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-llewellyn-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack