We here review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal construing Rule 3.151 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the consolidation of related offenses. The district court upheld the trial court's order allowing the pretrial consolidation of three alleged sexual offenses, the first of which occurred approximately one month before the others. Paul seeks review of that decision on the ground that the alleged offenses, though similar in nature, were not "related" within the contemplation of Rule 3.151 and the relevant case law.

Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

In effect, the district court's interpretation of Rule 3.151 permits the consolidation of similar offenses which are unrelated in terms of time or sequence. We reverse, and adopt as our opinion Judge Smith's well reasoned dissent in the case below insofar as it relates to Rule 3.151 and the consolidation of related offenses. We make no comment on that portion of Judge Smith's dissent which discusses the so-called " Williams Rule" Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) of admissibility.

See id. at 1066.

The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.

ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opinion.

ALDERMAN, Justice, dissenting.

Since the district court's decision in the present case does not conflict with any decision of a district court of appeal or this Court, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this cause. The district court addressed the issue of whether the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for consolidation in light of the particular facts of this case. It properly did not consider whether it would have reached a different result if it were initially deciding the question. Applying the correct principles of law, the district court decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. By accepting jurisdiction and quashing the decision of the district court, the majority is merely substituting its judgment for that of the trial court and the district court of appeal.

Because we are without jurisdiction in this matter, I would deny certiorari.

Summaries of

Paul v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Jul 3, 1980

385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1980)

adopting dissenting opinion of Judge Smith in appellate court, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)

Summary of this case from Williams v. Wainwright

adopting Judge Smith's dissenting opinion in Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)

Summary of this case from Ghent v. State

adopting Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting)

Summary of this case from Beal v. State

adopting part of the dissent of Judge Smith in Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

In Paul, this Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Judge Smith in the court below. Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting), quashed, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980).

Summary of this case from Crossley v. State

In Paul, we considered the consolidation for trial of charges related to the attempted sexual battery of three victims in three incidents.

Summary of this case from Garcia v. State

In Paul we adopted Judge Smith's dissent regarding consolidation to the district court's decision in Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Summary of this case from Livingston v. State

In Paul, this Court adopted Judge Smith's dissent relating to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.151 and the consolidation of related offenses.

Summary of this case from State v. Williams

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980), our Supreme Court adopted Judge Smith's dissent below, which explained that rule 3.151 "refer[s] to 'connected acts or transactions' in an episodic sense" rather than charges that "are 'connected' only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both or all instances."

Summary of this case from James v. State

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court established the "episodic" requirement for determining whether offenses are "related offenses" under the rules.

Summary of this case from State v. Varnum

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court partially adopted Judge Smith's dissent to Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065-67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), which stated that "... consolidation rule 3.151 and its counterpart, joinder rule 3.150, refer to `connected acts or transactions' in an episodic sense,... the rules do not warrant joinder or consolidation of criminal charges based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are `connected' only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both or all instances."

Summary of this case from Hoxter v. State

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court held that consolidation is improper when "based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are connected only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both or all instances."

Summary of this case from Jackson v. State

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), the authority primarily relied upon by appellant, the issue was the propriety of consolidating multiple offenses where some of the offenses were committed contemporaneously but others were committed five weeks apart.

Summary of this case from Spivey v. State

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court, adopting Judge Robert Smith's dissenting opinion in the district court, found an improper joinder.

Summary of this case from Beltran v. State

In Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), the court adopted Judge Robert Smith's dissenting opinion in Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), as the law of Florida on the question of whether charges are properly consolidated for the purpose of Rule 3.151. Although Paul is factually dissimilar, its rationale is applicable to the instant case.

Summary of this case from Taylor v. State

Paul v. State

Summary

Opinion

Paul v. State

Paul v. State

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Paul v. State

Summary

Opinion

Paul v. State

Paul v. State

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations