Case Reviews Cruller v. Florida

Cruller v. Florida is a case that arose as a function of the Florida state court system.  The case was presented to the Florida Supreme Court on a certified question to resolve a case law conflict between sister courts of different appellate districts.  The case initially arose from a violation two state criminal statutes, armed robbery and car-jacking.  The defendantappellant appealed his conviction to the Third District Court of appeals in Florida on the basis that a conviction of armed robbery and carjacking under the same factual predicate amounted a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution.

The Cruller appellate court held that the defendants conviction of both offenses did not constitute double jeopardy, a holding that was inapposite to the holding of its sister court in the in the First District. 

While the basis for the appeal in Cruller is a violation of double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the United States Constitution, the individual states have enacted anti-double jeopardy statutes. In the Cruller case, the statute in question is section 775.012 of the Florida Statutes, which represents the Florida codification of the double jeopardy clause.

The original venue for the case was a criminal trial court in the state of Florida, which convicted Cruller.  Cruller then appealed, which transferred jurisdiction and venue to the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida.  Because of the conflicting case law from the First District, the Third District Court of Appeals certified the double jeopardy question to the Supreme Court.  When the Supreme Court accepted certification, it obtained jurisdiction pursuant to the Florida Constitution, Article V,  3(b)(4).

United States v. Lopez-Montanez.
Lopez-Montanez is a case arising under federal jurisdiction.  In this case, the defendant-appellant was convicted by a federal jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which was also the original venue for the case.  The conviction was based on the violation of a federal immigration statute prohibiting re-entry into the United States after a previous removal, United States Code, Title 8, section 1326. 

The defendant-appellant appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which maintained jurisdiction until it rendered its decision.  After its opinion and order, the case was remanded back to the federal district court to vacate the initial sentence and to resentence the defendant-appellant.

The appeal in this case was based on the sentencing enhancement that was applied to the defendant-appellants sentence due to a previous violation of a California State Penal Code section (243.4(a)-sexual battery).  The sentencing enhancement is available if the previous crime committed is a categorical crime of violence.  In its opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the government failed to prove that the previous state crime as indeed a categorical crime of violence, overturned the sentence (not the conviction), and remanded to the District Court for resentencing.
State v. Ringquist.

Ringquist arose from a North Dakota state trial court (the District Court of Stark County), which was its original venue.  This case involves a search and seizure issue, which implicates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  In the Ringquist case, however, there is a provision in the North Dakota Constitution which mirrors the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal searches and seizures.  This case represents the North Dakota Supreme Courts constitutional question jurisdiction, as it must decide which U.S. Supreme Court decisional framework to apply to its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In the case, the district court granted a motion to suppress evidence because the search in which the evidence was found was unsupported by adequate probable cause.  So, although it is a state case, arising in the state court system, the appellate court looks at both state and federal jurisprudence due to the constitutional implications of a potentially illegal search, but relies primarily on United States Supreme Court opinions regarding suppression and Fourth Amendment issues. 

After analyzing federal jurisprudence, along with decisions interpreting the North Dakota State Constitution, the North Dakota Supreme Court, which acquired jurisdiction on appeal from the district court, adopted the Supreme Courts reasoning in Gates as applicable to probable cause issues arising under the North Dakota Constitution.

People v. Turner.
Turner is an interesting case because it involves an interlocutory appeal, which means an appeal from a non-final order.  In Turner, a pre-trial discovery ruling was made by the Chaffee County trial court, a Colorado state court, which was the original venue for the proceeding.  The ruling was an order to an agency to provide certain documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum.

The agency petitioned the Supreme Court for an order to show cause, claiming that the materials requested under the subpoena were privileged.  In normal circumstances, the Supreme Court would have to deny jurisdiction on the basis that no issues were ripe for appeal, because no final orders to the merits have case had been issued.  Here, however, the Colorado Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction, as granted under the state constitution to correct trial court abuse of discretion when the rights implicated are important and there is a potential for irreparable harm.  In Turner, the court chose to exercise its original jurisdiction because the outcome has a significant impact on these parties, and because the question of discoverability of victim advocate records is an issue of public importance that this court has not previously addressed.

United States v. Williams.
Williams is a federal case on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which was the original venue of the case.  However, on the basis that venue was improper in Michigan, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to address any substantial matters of law.  Finding that the District Court in Michigan was the improper venue for the trial, the Court of Appeals held it erred when it denied the defendants motion for a change of venue, and therefore lacked jurisdiction over the Defendant. Because the District Court from which the appeal was taken lacked jurisdiction over the case, the Sixth Circuit also lacked jurisdiction over substantial matters of law.  The Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction, vacated the judgment, and transferred venue to federal court in Texas, which was the proper venue.

0 comments:

Post a Comment