Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1996

Chillington v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 9, 1996 · No. 95-3719 · Brown, Glickstein, Lucy, Stevenson

682 So. 2d 1137; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10403; 1996 WL 577350 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Gallo v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Gant v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,109 S.Ct. 1892,104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989). However, this decision does not preclude our future consideration of other factual circumstances, notwithstanding State v. Moretti, 681 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), whether under the seven factors recited in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984), a forfeiture pursuant to section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1995), could constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), was decided under the federal statute and did not discuss the above factors.

GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., and BROWN, LUCY C., Associate Judge, concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.