Middleton v. State
131 So. 3d 815
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In June 2000, appellant was tried for first-degree murder with a firearm before a twelve-person jury.
- After deliberations began, the state struck a juror with a prior felony conviction; appellant chose to proceed with an eleven-person jury.
- The eleven-person jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a firearm; adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 35 years with a 3-year minimum.
- Appellant’s post-conviction claim alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising a mistrial option when the juror was dismissed; the trial court denied, and on appeal the court remanded for prejudice inquiry under Strickland.
- On remand, the trial court found no prejudice despite the mistrial option; the appellate court again remanded for a new trial; Judge Thomas concurred that retrial for first-degree murder could be foreclosed by double jeopardy.
- After further proceedings, the twelve-person jury found appellant guilty of first-degree murder with a firearm and also found firearm enhancement; appellant was sentenced to life without parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the implied acquittal on first-degree murder violates double jeopardy | Appellant | State | Double jeopardy violation; implied acquittal cannot be nullified |
| Appropriate remedy for double jeopardy violation | Appellant argues for retrial or reversal with dismissal | State argues nullity of implied acquittal due to structural error | Remand with directions to reduce to lesser included offense and resentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griffith, 561 So.2d 528 (Fla.1990) (waiver of twelve-person jury and validity of 11-person verdict in capital cases)
- Moody v. State, 931 So.2d 177 (Fla.2d DCA 2006) (acquittal cannot be challenged; distinction from mistrial)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1978) (acquittal cannot be challenged even when errors occurred)
- Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1962) (cannot reverse a conviction on the basis of an invalid trial)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (jeopardy attaches to acquittal despite defective proceedings)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1984) (guilty pleas to lesser offenses have different double jeopardy implications)
- Middleton v. State, 41 So.3d 357 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (discussion of double jeopardy scope and mistrial/waiver implications)