Case Title: Vinson v. State

Citation: 345 So. 2d 711

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1977-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
345 So. 2d 711 (1977)
Clifford VINSON, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 48476.

Supreme Court of Florida.
March 31, 1977.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1977.
Robert E. Pyle, of Pyle & Barber, Lake Alfred, and Frank C. Alderman, III, Fort Myers, for petitioner.
Joseph P. D'Alessandro, State's Atty.; Louis S. St. Laurent, Chief Asst. State's *712 Atty., Fort Myers and James R. Thompson, Asst. State's Atty., for respondent.
ROBERTS, Justice (Retired).
We review here by conflict certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 320 So. 2d 50 (Fla., DCA 2d, 1975), reversing a decision of the trial court which discharged the defendant. We have tentative jurisdiction because of apparent conflict with State v. Febre, 156 Fla. 149, 23 So. 2d 270 (1945).
Petitioner Vinson, defendant at the trial level and a physician, was charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance as proscribed by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, 1973, known as the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. Dr. Vinson entered a plea of not guilty but later, after what appeared to be some form of plea bargaining, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of nolo contendere. The trial judge ordered an evidentiary hearing on the plea. The State objected contending that upon the tender of such a plea the sole responsibility and authority of the Court was to accept (or reject) the plea and, if accepted, to impose sentence. Over the State's objection, the trial court proceeded to receive into evidence five exhibits and heard six witnesses, such witnesses being at times questioned from the bench. Several weeks later, the trial judge entered an Order finding Dr. Vinson not guilty of both counts and discharging him. The State appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, contending that the action of the trial judge in conducting the hearing and discharging the defendant was without authority of law and in effect a nullity and, therefore, did not prevent further prosecution of the case. The decision of the District Court in reversing the trial court appears as State v. Vinson, 320 So. 2d 50 (Fla., DCA 2d, 1975). The controlling question now presented is whether or not the action of the trial court was sufficient to bar further prosecution against a defense of former jeopardy.
The District Court properly determined that the trial judge was without authority at all to consider as viable the issue of guilt or innocence and explained:
Preliminarily, we find that Rule 3.170, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,[1] does *713 not require that an inquiry be made into the factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere. This rule expressly provides:
Although this rule requires a determination by the trial court that the circumstances surrounding the plea reflect a full understanding of the significance of the plea of nolo contendere or guilty and its voluntariness, as evidenced by the explicit language contained therein, an inquiry must be made into the factual basis of a guilty plea but not a plea of nolo contendere.
A plea of nolo contendere admits the facts for the purpose of the pending prosecution. It raises no issue of law or fact under the accusation. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, in a note to its decision in Tucker v. United States of America, 196 F. 260 (CA 7 Cir., 1912), described the nature and purpose of such a plea, as follows:
The Supreme Court of the United States in Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451, 47 S. Ct. 127, 71 L. Ed. 347, analyzed the historical background of the plea:
The following excerpt from 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law Section 497, supported by much decisional authority, is pertinent:
A plea of nolo contendere does not admit the allegations of the charge in a technical sense but only says that the defendant does not choose to defend. U.S. v. Weirton Steel Co., 62 F. Supp. 961 (D.C.W. Va. 1945). It is merely a formal declaration that the accused will not contest the charges with the prosecutor and is in the nature of a compromise between the state and the accused. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Cloonan, 165 Kan. 68, 193 P.2d 656 (1948).
Wharton's Criminal Procedure, Volume 4, p. 772, § 1903, describes the plea of nolo contendere, as follows:
It is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, as follows:
A plea of nolo contendere has been determined to be equivalent to a guilty plea only insofar as it gives the court the power to punish. Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281 (Fla.2d DCA, 1963), State v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 196, 72 S.E.2d 525 (1952).
An annotation on the effect of the plea of nolo contendere as an admission and waiver of defects, 152 A.L.R. 277, explains:
The court in Peel v. State, supra, confronted, inter alia, with the issue of whether the court could accept a plea of nolo contendere to a capital case, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, opined:
Therein, the District Court found that the plea of nolo contendere had the same effect as a guilty plea as to the case in which it is entered, i.e., waiver of all formal defects in the proceedings of which he could have availed himself.
As is quoted in the instant decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, and appropriately applicable to the facts before us, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Norris, 281 U.S. 619, 50 S. Ct. 424, 74 L. Ed. 1076 (1930), explicated:
We agree with the District Court sub judice under the facts presented that the trial court had no authority to enter a judgment of not guilty.
As to the double jeopardy argument presented by petitioner, we find it to be without merit. The District Court correctly declared:
Insofar as this decision may appear to be in conflict with State v. Febre, supra, the Febre decision rendered in 1945 prior to the adoption of Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.170, is modified to conform with this view.
In summary, we hold that the decision of the trial court discharging the defendant was without authority or jurisdiction and is a nullity. The choices of the trial court under Rule 3.170 and the facts of this case were: (1) to accept the plea and enter judgment and sentence thereon or (2) to reject the plea, enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant after which the defendant would have a choice of entering a plea of guilty or not guilty and then proceeding with the trial.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court, being without error, is approved, and the writ of certiorari heretofore issued is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and ADKINS, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ENGLAND, J., concurs with an opinion, with which ROBERTS (Retired), J., concurs.
BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.
ENGLAND, Justice, concurring.
The reasoning of the majority with respect to Vinson's double jeopardy contention is both logical and consistent with prior constitutional decisions. The double jeopardy provisions of the Florida Constitution[1] and the United States Constitution[2] implicate two distinctive inquiries. The first is whether jeopardy has "attached" at all in the proceeding. The second is whether, if jeopardy has in fact attached, reprosecution is nonetheless permitted by reason of "manifest necessity" or to meet the "ends of public justice".[3] This case involves only the first consideration.
We have held that jeopardy attaches when an unconditional guilty plea is or should have been "accepted".[4] The United States Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches in a non-jury proceeding called for trial when the trial judge begins to hear evidence.[5] Neither of these positions lend credence to the suggestion that a defendant can force a premature attachment of jeopardy simply by tendering a "no contest" plea to the trial judge. Obviously some form of acceptance is required before defendants can claim a constitutional right to prohibit reprosecution. The situation on tender of a no contest plea is identical to the situation on tender of a conditional guilty plea, as to which we have held that jeopardy attaches only when the plea is accepted.[6]
It is illogical to suggest that the process by which a trial judge decides whether to accept or reject a plea  either by informal discussion with counsel for both sides or by requiring the presentation of evidence  can determine whether a defendant has been put in "jeopardy"  that is, in a position of being subject through state action to the embarrassment, expense and ordeal of multiple *718 conviction attempts.[7] It follows that the majority has correctly concluded that this case presents no constitutional difficulty under the Florida or United States Constitution.
ROBERTS (Retired), J., concurs.
BOYD, Justice, dissenting.
Petitioner Vinson, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, was charged by information with two counts of unlawful delivery of controlled substances contrary to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. The information alleged that Dr. Vinson had issued written orders prescribing controlled substances outside the course of his professional practice. After Dr. Vinson withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of nolo contendere, the trial judge ordered an evidentiary hearing on the plea. At the hearing, above the protestations of the State that the purpose of the hearing was limited solely to determine the sentence to be imposed, the trial judge announced, "... it is necessary that an Evidentiary Hearing be held, in order for the Court to determine the guilt or the innocence of the man and the truth of the matter, which is what we are after... ." The State then introduced five exhibits into evidence and presented six witnesses who testified to a complete version of the circumstances which led to the charge. Over objection by the State a brief cross-examination of one of the witnesses, interspersed with questions from the bench, was conducted by the defense. Less than one month later the trial judge rendered an order finding Dr. Vinson not guilty of both counts and discharging him from the case.
The State appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. In its decision reported at 320 So. 2d 50, the court held the following: (1) While a trial judge is not precluded from making inquiry into a factual basis for a nolo contendere plea, at the conclusion of such inquiry he has no authority to enter a judgment of acquittal. If he thinks that the underlying facts do not establish guilt, he may afford the accused an opportunity to withdraw the plea, or, in the alternative, refuse to accept the plea and enter a plea of not guilty. (2) Such a decision does not run afoul of the prohibition against double jeopardy. Jeopardy had attached. However, entry of the judgment of acquittal was an act beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, so that the matter awaited proper disposition through trial to be conducted on remand.
We have jurisdiction[1] because of conflict with State v. Febre, 156 Fla. 149, 23 So. 2d 270 (1945).
The main issue for our decision is whether Dr. Vinson may now be tried consistent with the prohibitions against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.
The basic premise underlying the prohibition against double jeopardy is that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense. U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 339, 95 S. Ct. 1013, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1975). From this premise it follows that in nonjury proceedings jeopardy attaches when the judge begins to hear evidence on the issue of guilt, State v. Bernard, 254 So. 2d 38 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), Serfass v. U.S., 420 U.S. 377, 95 S. Ct. 1055, 43 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1975), and that the constitutional prohibition has no application until a defendant is put to trial before the trier of facts, whether the trier be a jury or a judge. U.S. v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S. Ct. 547, 27 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1971).
It is clear that the judge in this case began to hear evidence on the issue of guilt so that jeopardy attached. The question remains whether the evidentiary hearing before the judge amounted to a trial, thereby preventing a retrial of Dr. Vinson.
In State v. Budnick, 237 So. 2d 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1970), the Court held that the word "trial" contemplates a hearing on a plea of nolo contendere before a court seeking to *719 determine guilt or innocence. In State v. Febre, supra, the accused was charged with first degree murder and pleaded nolo contendere. The judge heard testimony and entered a judgment of conviction for the lesser offense of aggravated assault. The State appealed to this Court where it was held that the State was as bound by the judgment as if it had been entered pursuant to a jury verdict. I think that the State is just as bound by the judgment acquitting Dr. Vinson as if a jury had acquitted him, and I agree with Budnick that an evidentiary hearing on a plea of nolo contendere constitutes a trial. To retry Dr. Vinson would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
The majority relies upon Rule 3.170, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
The rule requires courts in each case before accepting a guilty plea to find a factual basis for the plea, but no such requirement is made for a plea of nolo contendere. Since both are usually treated by criminal courts as guilty pleas, equal justice requires the courts to find a factual basis for accepting a nolo contendere plea as if it were a guilty plea. The court was therefore authorized to make the inquiry here.
The fundamental purpose of criminal courts is to convict the guilty and to acquit the innocent. Rules of criminal procedure should not be applied mechanically, but courts should exercise discretion in each case. The court here was not satisfied with what had been made known in the initial presentation and made a lengthy examination of facts from State witnesses and exhibits. After entering the nolo contendere plea petitioner was upon the mercy of the court. If an error occurred it should not be charged against petitioner.
The Constitution of the United States is an elastic, living instrument capable of solving problems of society without violent revolution. Constitutional rights should be jealously guarded by all courts.
No constitutional right is more precious than the prohibition against trying the same person for the same crime after being acquitted.
I respectfully dissent.
[1]  Although it does not affect the outcome of this case, it is noteworthy that this Court on February 10, 1977, amended this rule to read as follows:

"(a) Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere the trial judge shall satisfy himself that the plea is voluntarily entered and that there is a factual basis for it. Counsel for the prosecution and the defense shall assist the trial judge in this function."
and to become effective July 1, 1977. Also interesting is that Federal Rule 11 parallels more closely Florida's Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 as it existed prior to February 10, 1977. The Federal Rule provides:
"A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea."
In the report of the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, the annotators, on page 34 of the volume identified as "Pleas of Guilty", said:
"Consistent with the position taken in the recent revision of Federal Rule 11, inquiry into accuracy is not required when the defendant enters a plea of nolo contendere. The Advisory Committee's note to Rule 11 states: `For a variety of reasons it is desirable in some cases to permit entry of judgment upon a plea of nolo contendere without inquiry into the factual basis for the plea. The new third sentence is not, therefore, made applicable to pleas of nolo contendere.' For one thing, the risk of inaccuracy when a nolo plea is tendered is relatively slight, as in such cases there is usually a sophisticated defendant (very often a business enterprise) who has been fully advised by retained counsel. Moreover, the advantages to be gained from such a plea might be diminished or lost if there were a subsequent inquiry into the underlying facts."
And so it is that Federal Rule 11 and the revised rule replacing Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.170 present different views as between the Federal and State Systems.
[1]  Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that "no person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense... ."
[2]  The Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1969).
[3]  Illinois v. Sommerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S. Ct. 1066, 35 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1973); United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L. Ed. 165 (1824).
[4]  Ray v. State, 231 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1969).
[5]  Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388, 95 S. Ct. 1055, 43 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1975).
[6]  Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973).
[7]  Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1957).
[1]  Art. V. § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.