Case Name: Scott CHILLINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-10-09
Citations: 682 So. 2d 1137
Docket Number: No. 95-3719
Parties: Scott CHILLINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., and BROWN, LUCY C., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 682
Pages: 1137–1137

Head Matter:
Scott CHILLINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-3719.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 9, 1996.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 26, 1996.
Fred Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joan Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,109 S.Ct. 1892,104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989). However, this decision does not preclude our future consideration of other factual circumstances, notwithstanding State v. Moretti, 681 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), whether under the seven factors recited in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984), a forfeiture pursuant to section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1995), could constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), was decided under the federal statute and did not discuss the above factors.
GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., and BROWN, LUCY C., Associate Judge, concur.