 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cameron5/11/2005
65).
This is not a case where the reinstatement of the three withdrawn UBAL manslaughter convictions would violate the defendant's double jeopardy rights. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975); Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 2000); Rodriguez v. State, 875 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); and Taflinger v. State, 698 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). If this court does not grant the relief requested, the State will either have to retry the defendant on the three BUI manslaughter counts or forgo a conviction and sentence on three deaths where the jury has already found the defendant guilty of UBAL manslaughter. Any sentence on the three counts of UBAL manslaughter that were affirmed by this court will also be affected if the court is unable to consider the three additional UBAL manslaughter convictions for purposes of sentencing. In addition, the State cannot appeal a not guilty verdict, should one occur, upon retrial of the BUI manslaughter counts. Even if a jury were to return a guilty verdict on the three BUI manslaughter counts, the State would not be able to seek review absent the imposition of an unlawful or illegal sentence or perhaps on a cross-appeal if the defendant appeals the new convictions. Surely this is a manifest injustice warranting a second look at this court's decision preventing the trial court from reinstating the three withdrawn UBAL convictions.
Nevertheless, neither the Florida Constitution nor the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provide us with the mechanism with which to review the issue. I therefore concur in the dismissal of the State's petition.
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|