Wilfred A. Brown v. State of Florida
189 So. 3d 837
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Wilfred Brown was charged with two offenses after allegedly taking $175,000 from a victim he promised to invest but used for personal expenses: (1) first-degree grand theft (value ≥ $100,000); and (2) fraudulent security transaction under Fla. Stat. ch. 517.301(1)(a) (2007).
- Brown was convicted on both counts at trial and sentenced; the trial court also entered a judgment assessing costs of prosecution.
- On appeal Brown raised a double jeopardy challenge to being convicted and sentenced on both statutes, and challenged the court’s award of prosecution costs for lack of a hearing and evidentiary showing.
- The State did not dispute the factual account on appeal; the court reviewed the double jeopardy claim de novo, applying the Blockburger test as codified in §775.021(4) (2007).
- The Fourth District held the statutory elements of the two offenses are distinct (each requires an element the other does not), so dual convictions did not violate double jeopardy.
- The court reversed the cost judgment because the State provided no prior notice, no evidentiary admission of the invoice, and no hearing at which the amounts could be contested, violating due process; remanded for a new hearing on costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for grand theft and fraudulent security transaction violate double jeopardy | Statutes are distinct; Legislature permits separate punishments for separate offenses | Offenses arise from same transaction and are degree variants or duplicative; double jeopardy bars dual convictions | Not a double jeopardy violation — each statute requires an element the other does not (investment-connection vs. $100,000 value) |
| Whether trial court properly imposed prosecution costs without a hearing or adequate proof | Costs awarded at sentencing were permissible | Lack of pre-sentencing notice, no hearing, and no admissible evidence of costs violates due process | Reversed: defendant entitled to notice and an evidentiary hearing; state failed to prove costs as required |
Key Cases Cited
- Rimondi v. State, 89 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (double jeopardy may be raised for the first time on appeal)
- Newton v. State, 31 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (double jeopardy review of undisputed facts is de novo)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (standard for de novo review of double jeopardy issue)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (degree-variant exception applies only when statute provides multiple degrees)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (elemental test for multiple punishments)
- Juliao v. State, 149 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (apply §775.021(4) and compare statutory elements)
- Donovan v. State, 572 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (focus on statutory elements, not the evidence presented)
- Thompson v. State, 585 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (example where theft and anti‑fencing convictions were treated as degree variants)
- State v. Thompson, 607 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1992) (supreme court approval of Thompson decision)
- Davis v. State, 677 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (notice required before sentencing hearing when state seeks costs of prosecution)