Case Name: Donald Roberts BOOTH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent; Bertram Mark SCHWARTZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-06-09
Citations: 436 So. 2d 36
Docket Number: Nos. 62561, 62559
Parties: Donald Roberts BOOTH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. Bertram Mark SCHWARTZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 436
Pages: 36–40

Head Matter:
Donald Roberts BOOTH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. Bertram Mark SCHWARTZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Nos. 62561, 62559.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 9, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1983.
John D. O’Brien, Panama City, for Booth; and John S. Berk, Fort Lauderdale, for Schwartz.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
SHAW, Justice.
Petitioners seek review of a district court of appeal decision, State v. Booth, 418 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), certifying a question to be of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Petitioners were arrested at the Pensacola Municipal Airport and charged by both the United States and the State of Florida with illegal possession of marijuana. The federal indictments contained four counts: Counts I and II alleged conspiracy to possess marijuana in excess of one thousand pounds and possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846 (1980), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1980); Counts III and IY alleged conspiracy to import marijuana in excess of one thousand pounds and importation of same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 963 (1980), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1980).
The state information contained three counts: Count I alleged possession of more than twenty grams of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980); Count II alleged possession with intent to sell, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980); Count III alleged importation of more than one hundred pounds of cannabis, in violation of section 893.135(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980).
Petitioners were tried and adjudicated guilty as charged on all four counts of the federal indictment in the United States District Court. Petitioner Booth was sentenced to two twelve-year and two five-year terms of imprisonment to run concurrently and fined $75,000. Petitioner Schwartz was sentenced to two fifteen-year and two five-year terms of imprisonment to run concurrently and fined $100,000.
Petitioners subsequently filed motions to dismiss the state information on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court granted the motions, reasoning that the interests to be protected and the penalties to be imposed in the state and federal proceedings were substantially similar. In reversing, the district court adhered to the doctrine of dual sovereignty and certified the following question to this Court:
ARE SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS IN FEDERAL AND FLORIDA COURTS ON CHARGES ARISING OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF DRUG LAWS OF BOTH SOVEREIGNS BARRED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
418 So.2d at 387.
Our answer is no. We are not unaware that a number of states, although continuing to recognize the doctrine of dual sovereignty, have declined to permit a state prosecution following a federal prosecution for the same offense where the state and federal interests are identical and are served by the single federal prosecution. People v. Cooper, 398 Mich. 450, 247 N.W.2d 866 (1976); Commonwealth v. Mills, 447 Pa. 163, 286 A.2d 638 (1971). The petitioners ask that we join these states by holding that the State of Florida cannot prosecute when there has been a federal prosecution growing out of the same facts, and the interests to be protected and the penalties to be imposed in the federal and state prosecutions are substantially similar. We decline to do so. In allowing prosecutorial discretion in such situations, we perceive no violation of constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy and accordingly adhere to the doctrine of dual sovereignty established by federal and Florida case law. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 So. 4 (1908). We recognize that there may well be sound policy reasons for the adoption of a prosecutorial policy by the state executive branch similar to the federal policy, whereby the state would not bring a state prosecution following a federal prosecution, absent a compelling state interest. Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490 (1960). Nevertheless, such a policy is not constitutionally mandated by either the United States or Florida Constitutions, and we decline to establish or formulate prosecutorial policy under the guise of constitutional pronouncements. Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 98 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977). The result of our decision is to allow prosecutorial discretion by the state following a federal prosecution for the same offense.
The decision and opinion of the district court is approved.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, J., concurs with an opinion, with which BOYD, J., concurs.
McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ADKINS, J., concurs.