STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL DAVID BOARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court's Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the state has sole discretion to revoke a pretrial intervention agreement without judicial approval or hearing. The trial court erred in ordering the state to reinstate the defendant's pretrial intervention status and requiring judicial review of the revocation decision.
No. The state has sole discretion to revoke a pretrial intervention agreement without court approval or hearing. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the state to reinstate the defendant's pretrial intervention status pending judicial review of the revocation decision.
[1] The decision to admit a defendant to pretrial intervention is a prosecutorial function and remains within the prosecutor's discretion.
[2] The statutory scheme for pretrial intervention allows the state, solely, to decide whether to resume prosecution of charges against a defendant admitted to the program.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under the statutory scheme, once a defendant is admitted to pretrial intervention, the decision to resume prosecution of the charges against the defendant lies solely with the state.”
Establishes that the state has exclusive prosecutorial discretion over pretrial intervention decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael David Board was admitted to a pretrial intervention program. The state subsequently notified Board that it was revoking his pretrial intervent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Review Of Prosecutorial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*881] COBB, Judge.
When the state notified defendant Michael David Board that it was revoking his pretrial intervention agreement, the defendant filed a motion seeking specific performance of the agreement. The trial court granted that motion and ordered the state to reinstate the defendant’s pretrial intervention status, holding that the state must first file a motion with the trial court seeking revocation of the agreement and present evidence to the court establishing that the defendant had breached the agreement. The state filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming that the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law. We agree with the state and grant the petition.
The pretrial intervention program is a creation of the legislature. Under the statutory scheme, once a defendant is admitted to pretrial intervention, the decision to resume prosecution of the charges against the defendant lies solely with the state. § 944.025(4), (5), Fla.Stat. (1989). Both the statute and the specific pretrial intervention agreement executed by the parties in this case allow the state attorney to reinstate prosecution where the public interest dictates such action.
In Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1982), the Florida Supreme Court emphasized that pretrial intervention is an alternative to prosecution and thus the decision to admit a defendant to pretrial intervention must remain in the prosecutor’s discretion. The supreme court in Cleveland specifically noted that the state attorney has discretion to reinstate prosecution, which is consistent with the view that the pretrial diversion decision is a prosecutorial function. In addition, the court pointed out that the legislature did not provide for any type of judicial review when creating the pretrial intervention program. See also State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (decisions concerning pretrial diversion programs are purely prosecutorial and are not subject to judicial review).
Since the statute creating the pretrial intervention program places no limitations on the state’s discretion to reinstate prosecution after pretrial intervention has been approved, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it held that the state was required to reinstate the defendant’s pretrial intervention pending a judicial review of the decision to revoke the agreement. A court can no more compel the state to reinstate a defendant’s pretrial intervention status than it can compel the state to place the defendant on pretrial intervention in the first place. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court’s order directing the state to reinstate the defendant’s pretrial intervention agreement is quashed. Whether the defendant may be entitled to dismissal of the prosecution based on the state’s action is a question which is not properly before the court at this time.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Turner, 636 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…r the prosecution shall continue. § 948.08(5), Fla.Stat. (1993)2; see Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1982) (pretrial diversion decision of state attorney is prose-cutorial in nature and thus not subject to judicial review); State v. Board, 565 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (order requiring reinstatement of defendant’s pretrial intervention pending review of decision to revoke it reversed; present issue of defendant’s entitlement to dismissal reserved); State v. Bryant, 549 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA…
-
Batista v. State, 951 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ion of the right to appeal, and, as we noted in Pena, since courts may not be in agreement as to the jurisdiction issue, and as it may be reviewable by petition, we address the merits. PTI programs are a creation of the legislature. State v. Board, 565 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Section 948.08, Florida Statutes, allows certain first offenders or persons convicted of not more than one non-violent misdemeanor or third-degree felony to be placed in PTI. There are two types of diversionary programs; th…
-
State v. Simons, 22 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…defendant in a pretrial [*736] intervention program. It is correct as a general principle that prosecutors have sole discretion to admit a defendant to pretrial intervention, see Batista v. State, 951 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); State v. Board, 565 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), but the trial judge in this case did not order the state to enroll the defendant in the program. Pretrial intervention was merely one part of a comprehensive settlement agreement that contained many other provisions. The judge d…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ophelia Johnson Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Green, 527 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)