Document: 424 U.S. 641 96 S.Ct. 1086 47 L.Ed.2d 301 William BUCOLO et al.v.James ADKINS, Chief Justice, al. No. 75-369. March 8, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioners were convicted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Fla., publishing certain comic strips and pictures violation Florida obscenity statute.1 On appeal, Supreme affirmed.2 In April 1975, we granted certiorari summarily reversed judgment Florida, citing Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 153, 94 2750, 41 642 (1974), Kois Wisconsin, 408 229, 92 2245, 33 312 (1972).3 2 The sent case to trial court "for further proceedings which standards established Miller California4 can be applied."5 thereupon applied us for a writ mandamus directing respondents "to vacate expunge from record" opinion mandate on remand Florida. They complained that, subjecting them second trial, state ignored this Court's determination that published materials not obscene.6 3 November 4, while petitioners' request was pending before us, State Attorney at direction State's General, Nolle prossed charges. follows common law with respect prosequi vests its General exclusive discretion determine is "unwilling prosecute." See 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law § 378 (1972). prosequi, if entered jeopardy attaches, neither operates as an acquittal nor prevents prosecution offense. Id., 438; Smith State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939). We are informed by instant case, Florida's speedy-trial rule precludes renewed petitioners. Therefore, threatened injury impelled petitioners invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction would appear obviated. But, take position entry Does eliminate necessity act insure will conform decision reached Court. 4 contend these circumstances prosecutor's exercise discretionary authority forgo serves deprive exoneration reversal otherwise entitles them. find support claim language nolle itself, is, presumably, now part permanent record case. That document erroneously suggests applying ordered Court.7 It also had become unwilling prosecute solely result passage time. agree nothing state-court record, it stands, recognizes foreclosed seeking convict violations. unable dismiss insignificant plaint obscures favorable adjudication merits requires full recognition courts order effectively dispel any opprobrium resulting accusation obscenity. 5 Observation disposition following summary reveals has attributed never made. Further pursuant information charging violating statute clearly foreclosed. circumstance, court's failure give effect cured intervening prosecutorial discretion. Accordingly, motion leave file petition ordering granted. Assuming do make, issue mandamus. Deen Hickman, 358 57, 79 1, 28 (1958). 6 Mr. Justice STEVENS, whom REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. 7 28, necessary require Texas make sure underlying litigation properly conducted. no matter what do, there litigation. recited Court, therefore, justify issuance writ. Since I vote favor such writ, deny file. Fla.Stat.Ann. 847.011 (Supp. 1975). Bucolo 303 So.2d 329 (1974). 421 927, 95 1651, 44 84. 413 15, 93 2607, 37 419 (1973). 316 551 (1975). his response mandamus, concedes "there question but reversing (p)etitioners' conviction 21, referring (Jenkins ), conclusively determined disseminated obscene law." He urges however, relief other grounds. direct attention filed prosecutor prosse contains notation: "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES REMANDED THIS CASE UNDER GUIDELINES MILLER V. CALIFORNIA. NOLLE PROSSED USING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION REGARDING ITS AGE AND LOCATION WITNESSES."

Category: 8