James v. State
61 So. 3d 492
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- James challenged appellate counsel for not arguing double jeopardy in convictions for conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine; both conspiracies ran August 1–November 10, 2005 and involved same participants with same duration; trial court convicted James of racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and trafficking in cocaine; conspiracy to commit racketeering drew a lesser sentence; this court holds double jeopardy error; remands to strike the lesser conviction; petition denied in part and granted in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy viability of dual conspiracy convictions | James argues dual conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy | State contends no error or non-fundamental error | Yes, fundamental error; ineffective on appeal |
| Remedy and relief for dual conspiracy conviction | James seeks relief on direct appeal for the dual convictions | State contends no need for further appeal | Strike the lesser-convicted conspiracy and remand |
| Whether new appeal is warranted given fundamental error | Redundant to appeal current conviction | Not necessary to refile anew | Redundant; apply Rios framework; remedy as above |
Key Cases Cited
- Rios v. State, 19 So.3d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (fundamental error may be raised on appeal; ineffective counseling for not raising double jeopardy)
- Rodriguez v. State, 36 So.3d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (court noted Rios framework and remand guidance; strike lesser sentence)
- Gisi v. State, 848 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (double jeopardy may be raised on appeal as fundamental error)