 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Torres12/3/2004
The State of Florida appeals the trial court's order dismissing the pending charge against Jason Torres. The trial court concluded that the pretrial supervised release condition to undergo counseling constituted punishment and that no further punishment could be imposed without violating the constitutional protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause, if subsequently Mr. Torres were to be found guilty. We reverse because the facts do not show that the protections afforded Mr. Torres by the Double Jeopardy Clause have been violated.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November 2002, an information was filed charging nineteen- year-old Jason Torres with lewd or lascivious battery, a second-degree felony violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (2002), for sexual activity with a minor twelve or older but under the age of sixteen. Mr. Torres had voluntarily turned himself in shortly after he discovered that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. At his first appearance hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that the basis for the warrant was an allegation that consensual sexual intercourse had occurred between two teenaged neighbors. The prosecutor also related that Mr. Torres had no criminal history, was gainfully employed, and had lived for five years in Lee County with his parents. The court ordered that Mr. Torres be screened for pretrial release and, should he qualify for supervised release, that he have an evaluation by Family Alliance; furthermore, if he participated in any counseling as a result of the evaluation, the court ordered that the counseling be confidential.
Mr. Torres was evaluated and placed on supervised release. Because he qualified for supervised pretrial release on his own recognizance, he was not required to post the $5000 bond that the State had requested and that the court provisionally ordered. He then attended four or five counseling sessions. However, after the State filed the information and shortly before arraignment, Mr. Torres's counsel filed a motion to suspend or strike the condition requiring counseling. The motion alleged that Family Alliance was pressuring him to undergo further counseling, and the counseling requirement was an unreasonable bond condition that should be struck. At the hearing on this motion, the court granted the defense motion and struck the counseling requirement. The court believed that the bond condition imposing counseling was a form of punishment when Mr. Torres had not yet been convicted, recognizing a potential double jeopardy problem that had recently been addressed in the circuit. Because Mr. Torres was complying with all other conditions, the court further refused the State's request that a monetary bond condition be imposed.
As the case neared the trial date, Mr. Torres's counsel moved for dismissal of the case and discharge of the defendant on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the counseling requirement that was imposed at first appearance was available only upon conviction. Furthermore, the condition requiring evaluation could not reasonably be construed as necessary to ensure Mr. Torres's future appearances in court. Attached to the motion as legal support was a copy of the opinion in State v. Price, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 617 (Fla. 20th Cir. Ct. 2001). At the hearing, the court, based on Price, dismissed the case against Mr. Torres and discharged him because it found that requiring counseling as a condition of pretrial release constituted a penalty that could only be imposed upon conviction. The court explained that to then subject him to trial and expose him to further punishment should he be convicted would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Claiming that no double jeopardy vio
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|