Suspended License
The issue of whether you can be charged with both misdemeanor driving while license suspended in violation of section 322.34(2) and felony driving while license suspended in violation of section 322.34(5). This issue was addressed in Pedro Gil v. State of Florida, No. SC11-1983 (July 11, 2013).
On
October 27, 2009, Gil pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor DWLS charge in a
county court and was adjudged guilty of this charge. Gil was sentenced to six
months’ probation and two hundred hours of community service, plus the payment
of $358. On the same day, the State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
filed an information that charged Gil with a violation of the felony HTO
statute. Gil subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the information on the
basis that it violated Florida’s double jeopardy statute. The circuit court granted Gil’s motion to dismiss
the felony information. On appeal, the Third District reversed the dismissal of
the information. Gil, 68 So. 3d at 1003. While acknowledging that the HTO
provision, codified in section 322.34(5), appears to be a degree variant of the
DWLS provision, codified in section 322.34(2), the Third District nonetheless
stated: Subsection (5) is not a degree variant of subsection (2) because:
subsection (2) punishes for driving with a canceled or revoked license, whereas
subsection (5) only punishes for driving with a revoked license. The Third District ultimately held that “because
suspension or revocation under subsection (2) of section 322.34 is based on
entirely different conduct and on a completely different criteria than a
revocation under subsection (5), subsection (5) cannot be a degree variant of
subsection (2), and therefore convictions for violating subsection (2) and subsection
(5) do not constitute double jeopardy.
On October 6, 2009, Pedro Gil
was stopped in Miami-Dade County for speeding. Gil informed the officer that
his driver’s license was suspended, and Gil was then arrested. For purposes of
this case, the arrest report listed the following charges: driving with a
suspended license (DWLS), in violation of section 322.34.
However, double jeopardy may
still attach if subsections 322.34(2) and 322.34(5) satisfy one of the
exceptions provided under subsection 775.021(4)(b). As previously discussed,
the DWLS and HTO provisions do not require identical elements of proof.
Further, driving with a suspended license is not a lesser included offense of
unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender. Instead, the dispositive issue
is whether the DWLS offense and the HTO offense are “degrees of the same
offense” under subsection (4)(b)(2). Applying
the test articulated in Valdes, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that
sections 322.34(2) and 322.34(5) qualify as variant offenses under section
775.021(4)(b)(2) and double jeopardy precludes the prosecution of Gil under the
HTO provision in light of his prior conviction under the DWLS provision based
on the same facts. www.zlawfirmfl.com
Comments
Post a Comment