POFF V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 THOMAS POFF and CHARLES RANDOLPH, ** CASE NO.:3D03-1300 Appellants, ** CONSOLIDATED: 3D03-893 vs. ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO.01-297 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** Opinion filed May 12, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Luis M. Garcia, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and WELLS, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. -1- Thomas Poff and Charles Randolph appeal their convictions and sentences for burglary and grand theft, claiming that the double jeopardy clause of the Florida Constitution precluded retrial where a mistrial had previously been granted. Poff additionally argues that admission of collateral crimes evidence and argument at the retrial mandates reversal. Having reviewed the record from the initial trial, we find that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial in this case. See Gore v. State, 784 So. 2d 418, 427 (Fla. 2001)( [o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to goad the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial afer having succeeded in aborting the first ... )(quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 (1982)); Duncan v. State, 525 So. 2d 938, 941 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(declining to adopt as a matter of state constitutional law a standard broader than that stated in Kennedy to determine when double jeopardy will bar retrial following a defendant s motion for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct). Following a review of the record, we find no Williams1 rule violation. Affirmed. 1 Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)(precluding similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity). -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.