Case Name: Katisha PRUITT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-11-15
Citations: 830 So. 2d 895
Docket Number: No. 2D01-4385
Parties: Katisha PRUITT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: DAVIS, J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 830
Pages: 895–899

Head Matter:
Katisha PRUITT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 2D01-4385.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 15, 2002.
Julianne M. Holt, Public Defender, and David D. Hendry, Assistant Public Defender, Tampa, for Petitioner.
Richard E. Doran, Attorney General Tallahassee, and Jenny Scarino Sieg, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.

Opinion:
GREEN, Judge.
Katisha Pruitt petitions this court for a writ of prohibition alleging that the trial court is prohibited by double jeopardy principles from retrying her and therefore erred in denying her motion for discharge. This case presents a rather unique factual situation. After the jury reached its verdict (of not guilty) but before the verdict was rendered, the trial court declared a mistrial. Pruitt argues that the trial court is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.680 to accept the verdict. Alternatively she argues that there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial thereby entitling her to discharge. We deny the petition with prejudice because rule 3.680 is inapplicable and because Pruitt's counsel consented to the mistrial.
Pruitt went to trial on the charge of possession of cocaine. It was discovered after the jury reached a verdict but before that verdict was rendered that the alternate juror accompanied the jurors to the jury room to deliberate. When advised of these facts the trial court inquired of counsel for the State and defense whether they thought a mistrial should be granted. Defense counsel responded that a mistrial would be appropriate. The State asked for a recess in order to research the issue. After the recess the State agreed to the mistrial and defense counsel stood mute. The jury was then brought into the courtroom, the judge asked them if they had reached a verdict, took the verdict form, and then announced the mistrial. After announcing the mistrial, the trial judge read the not guilty verdict.
Pruitt first argues that she is entitled to entry of the not guilty verdict pursuant to rule 3.680 which provides:
JUDGMENT ON INFORMAL VERDICT
If a verdict is rendered from which it can be clearly understood that the jurors intended to acquit the defendant, a judgment of not guilty shall be rendered thereon even though the verdict is defective. No judgment of guilty shall be rendered on a verdict unless the jurors clearly express in it a finding of guilt of the defendant.
The trial court denied this claim essentially finding that the mistrial was granted before the verdict was rendered. The State argues, and we agree, that rule 3.680 is inapplicable for that reason. A verdict is rendered when it has been accepted by the judge, announced, and filed with the clerk. See Keene Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. Pennell, 614 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1993). In this case the mistrial was granted before the verdict was rendered, and the rule does not afford Pruitt any relief.
Pruitt next argues that there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial and that therefore her retrial is barred by double jeopardy. Pruitt is correct that where a jury is discharged without the defendant's consent and without absolute necessity, the discharge is equivalent of an acquittal and precludes retrial. See Spaziano v. State, 429 So.2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The trial court denied the motion as to this point finding that there was manifest necessity for the mistrial. We need not reach that issue however because the record demonstrates that Pruitt affirmatively consented to the mistrial when her counsel agreed that a mistrial would be appropriate. See Adkins v. Smith, 205 So.2d 530 (Fla.1967).
We therefore deny the petition with prejudice.
DAVIS, J., Concurs.
KELLY, J., Concurs in part and dissents in part.