Cote v. State

793 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 2001) · Supreme Court of Florida · August 30, 2001 · No. SC00-1327

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that a juvenile may not be punished both for criminal contempt and for violating community control based on the same underlying conduct. The court concluded that the juvenile contempt proceeding was at most voidable, that jeopardy attached when the State participated without objection, and that the subsequent community-control punishment violated double jeopardy principles.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Shaw, J.; Anstead, J.; Pariente, J.; Lewis, J.; Quince, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
August 30, 2001
Docket number
SC00-1327
Procedural posture
Review of a decision of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal accepted because it expressly and directly conflicted with N.T. v. State, 682 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Standard of review
De novo review of constitutional double-jeopardy and jurisdictional issues; review under the Supreme Court of Florida's conflict jurisdiction.
Precedential value
Published precedential decision of the Supreme Court of Florida; majority opinion approving N.T. and establishing a rule against successive punishment for the same juvenile community-control conduct.
Parties
Ronald Cote v. State of Florida
Disposition
quashed

Topics

double jeopardycriminal procedureappellate jurisdictionappellate procedureconstitutional law

Practice areas

criminal lawjuvenile lawappellate law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether double jeopardy barred punishing Cote for a violation of community control after he had already been punished for indirect criminal contempt based on the same conduct.
  2. Whether the juvenile division's contempt proceeding was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the proceeding should have occurred in the felony division.
  3. Whether the Florida Supreme Court had conflict jurisdiction to review the Second District's decision.

Holdings

  1. A juvenile may not be punished both for indirect criminal contempt and for violation of community control when both punishments are based on the same underlying conduct.
  2. The juvenile contempt proceeding was at most voidable, not void, because the juvenile and felony divisions are divisions of the circuit court, which had subject-matter jurisdiction over the felony proceedings.
  3. The court had jurisdiction to review the Second District's decision because it expressly and directly conflicted with N.T. v. State.

Key quotations

We quash Cote, approve N.T., and hold that a juvenile may not be punished by both criminal contempt and for a violation of community control based upon the same underlying conduct. (at 908)
Having been once punished for his misconduct, Cote could not be punished again without violating the constitutional bar against double jeopardy. (at 911)
We find the juvenile contempt proceeding to have been at most voidable, not void. (at 911)

Factual background

Cote entered a felony plea while a juvenile and was given juvenile sanctions, including community control. He was later prosecuted in the juvenile division for indirect criminal contempt based on violations of that community control and was sentenced to juvenile detention. The felony division subsequently prosecuted the identical violations, revoked community control, and imposed a suspended prison sentence.

Procedural history

While a juvenile, Cote pleaded to a felony and received juvenile sanctions consisting of commitment followed by community control. After he violated community control, the juvenile division adjudicated him in indirect criminal contempt and imposed juvenile detention. The felony division later considered the same violations, revoked community control, withheld adjudication, and imposed a suspended prison sentence. The Second District rejected Cote's double-jeopardy claim, but the Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, approved N.T., and remanded.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the lower court for proceedings consistent with the holding that Cote could not be punished for violation of community control on the same facts underlying the prior criminal-contempt punishment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…