Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
77 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: AVERY DESEAN JAMES v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2024-02-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AVERY DESEAN JAMES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
In Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980), our Supreme Court adopted Judge Smith’s dissent below, which explained that rule 3.151 “refer[s] to ‘connected acts or transactions’ in an episodic sense” rather than charges that “are ‘connected’ only by similar circumstances and the accused’s alleged guilt in both or all instances.” “To aid in this inquiry, “[c]ourts may consider ‘the temporal and geographical association, the nature of the crimes, and the manner in which they were committed.’” Varnum, 991 So. 2d at 921 (quoting Garcia v. State, 568 So. 2d 896…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Varnum
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 1372 (adopting in part Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hempstead v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
This court recognized that "consolidation is improper when `based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are connected only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both or all instances.'" Id. at 491-92 (quoting Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephens v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
The purpose of separate trials is "`to assure that evidence adduced on one charge will not be misused to dispel doubts on the other.'" State v. Williams, 453 So.2d 824, 825 (Fla.1984) (quoting Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting), adopted in, Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. State (2×)
Fla. · 1990 · confidence medium
The applicable principles were made clear in Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980), adopting in part 365 So.2d 1063, 1065-67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
The supreme court held in State v. Williams, 453 So.2d 824, 825 (Fla. 1984) (citing Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting)), "that consolidation [of offenses] is improper when `based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are "connected" only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both and all instances.' 365 So.2d at 1065-66 , adopted 385 So.2d 1371 at 1372." The supreme court's interpretation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150(a) in both Williams and Paul mandates the severance of offenses and separate…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Wainwright
S.D. Fla. · 1984 · confidence medium
The supreme court, adopting in part the dissenting appellate opinion of Judge Smith, 5 id. at 1372, held that the pretrial consolidation of the alleged sexual offenses was improper because Rule 3.151 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits the consolidation of similar offenses which are unrelated in terms of time or sequence.
cited Cited "see" Smithers v. State
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.1980).
cited Cited "see" Bateson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980).
cited Cited "see" Napoli v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting), quashed, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980) (adopting J.
cited Cited "see" Wallis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), adopting the dissent in Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Williams, 453 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1984).
cited Cited "see" McDonald v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980).
discussed Cited "see" Proenza v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847 , 80 S.Ct. 102 , 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); McCall v. State, 463 So.2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Maisto, 427 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981); Macklin v. State, 395 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Cotita v. State, 381 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1981); Avis v. State, 221 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).
cited Cited "see" Rivers v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980).
cited Cited "see" Green v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), partially adopting Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., dissenting).
cited Cited "see" McMullen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1980), partially adopting the dissenting opinion of Judge Smith in Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1st DCA 1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trevor Amos Brown v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“The state can establish the necessary connection by demonstrating (1) an uninterrupted crime spree or (2) a causal link irrespective of the passage of time.” Lindsey v. State, 220 So. 3d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see also Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1980) (adopting Judge Smith’s 3 dissent in Paul v. State, 365 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), which explained that rule 3.151 “refer[s] to ‘connected acts or transactions’ in an episodic sense” rather than charges that “are ‘connected’ only by similar circumstances and the accused’s alleged guilt in both…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gregory PAUL, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
56140.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 3, 1980.
385 So. 2d 1371
England.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published

[*1372] Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect and Doris E. Jenkins, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

ENGLAND, Justice.

We here review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal[1] construing Rule 3.151 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the consolidation of related offenses. The district court upheld the trial court's order allowing the pretrial consolidation of three alleged sexual offenses, the first of which occurred approximately one month before the others. Paul seeks review of that decision on the ground that the alleged offenses, though similar in nature, were not "related" within the contemplation of Rule 3.151 and the relevant case law.

In effect, the district court's interpretation of Rule 3.151 permits the consolidation of similar offenses which are unrelated in terms of time or sequence. We reverse, and adopt as our opinion Judge Smith's well reasoned dissent in the case below insofar as it relates to Rule 3.151 and the consolidation of related offenses. We make no comment on that portion of Judge Smith's dissent which discusses the so-called "Williams Rule" Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) of admissibility.[2]

The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.

ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opinion.

ALDERMAN, Justice, dissenting.

Since the district court's decision in the present case does not conflict with any decision of a district court of appeal or this Court, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this cause. The district court addressed the issue of whether the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for consolidation in light of the particular facts of this case. It properly did not consider whether it would have reached a different result if it were initially deciding the question. Applying the correct principles of law, the district court decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. By accepting jurisdiction and quashing the decision of the district court, the majority is merely substituting its judgment for that of the trial court and the district court of appeal.

Because we are without jurisdiction in this matter, I would deny certiorari.

1 Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).