Neal v. State
109 So. 3d 1245
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Neal used the same credit card seven times in Sarasota County and nine times in Charlotte County during July 9–12, 2009, without authorization.
- Sarasota County charged Neal with one count of fraudulent use of the credit card more than two times within six months; he pled nolo contendere on October 8, 2009 and was adjudged guilty with time served and twelve months probation.
- Charlotte County charged Neal with one count of fraudulent use of the same credit card more than two times within six months; a jury found him guilty.
- Neal moved to arrest judgment or for a new trial, arguing double jeopardy because of the Sarasota conviction for the same offense.
- The court concluded that all unauthorized uses within a six-month period constitute a single offense, and thus the Charlotte conviction violated double jeopardy; judgments for fraudulent use and for pretrial release were reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy precludes Charlotte conviction | Neal argues prior Sarasota conviction bars the Charlotte conviction. | State contends each offense is separate under §817.61. | Conviction in Charlotte reversed; double jeopardy violation established. |
| Proper unit of prosecution under §817.61 | All uses within six months may be separate offenses. | Each use could be a separate offense; degree depends on totals. | All unauthorized uses within six months treated as a single offense. |
| Pretrial release violation concern | Issue preserved for review. | Error acknowledged by State; merits not reargued. | Error conceded; not a separate issue warranting further discussion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 451 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (special concurring supports aggregation of uses within six months)
- State v. Daly, 659 P.2d 83 (Haw. App. 1983) (multiple views on six-month offenses (aggregation vs separate offenses))
- State v. Boyenger, 509 P.2d 1317 (Idaho 1973) (aggregation vs separate offenses within six months)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 903 S.W.2d 524 (Ky. 1995) (some jurisdictions allow separate convictions within period)
- Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Graves, 593 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1979) ( Third Circuit adopts hybrid approach on six-month offenses)
- Government of the Virgin Islands v. Walker, 261 F.3d 370 (3d Cir. 2001) (statutory design akin to Model Act interpretations)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (double jeopardy safeguards against successive prosecutions)
- Rodriguez v. State, 875 So.2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (double jeopardy considerations in Florida context)