RULE 3.151. CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED OFFENSES

(a) Related Offenses. For purposes of these rules, 2 or more
offenses are related offenses if they are triable in the same court
and are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more
connected acts or transactions.

(b) Consolidation of Indictments or Informations. Two or
more indictments or informations charging related offenses shall be
consolidated for trial on a timely motion by a defendant or by the
state. The procedure thereafter shall be the same as if the
prosecution were under a single indictment or information. Failure
to timely move for consolidation constitutes a waiver of the right to
consolidation.

(c) Dismissal of Related Offenses after Trial. When a
defendant has been tried on a charge of 1 of 2 or more related
offenses, the charge of every other related offense shall be dismissed
on the defendant’s motion unless a motion by the defendant for
consolidation of the charges has been previously denied, or unless
the defendant has waived the right to consolidation, or unless the
prosecution has been unable, by due diligence, to obtain sufficient
evidence to warrant charging the other offense or offenses.

(d) Plea. A defendant may plead guilty or nolo contendere to
a charge of 1 offense on the condition that other charges of related
offenses be dismissed or that no charges of other related offenses be
instituted. Should the court find that the condition cannot be
fulfilled, the plea shall be considered withdrawn.

Committee Notes

1968 Adoption. This rule is almost the same as federal rule
13, with provisions added for trial by affidavit.

1972 Amendment. (a) To same general effect as ABA
Standard with changes to conform to rules 3.150(a) and 3.190(k).

(b) Limits motion for consolidation to defendant and
provides that defendant waives his or her right to consolidation by
failing to file a timely motion. Under standards relating to joinder of
offenses and defendants, the prosecution may avoid the necessity
for consolidation by charging offenses and defendants in a single
indictment or information where consolidation is permissible. Omits
provision of ABA Standard authorizing denial of consolidation if
prosecuting attorney does not have “sufficient evidence to warrant
trying” 1 of the “offenses” or if the court finds that the ends of
justice would be defeated by consolidation. The lack of “sufficient
evidence to warrant” trial of 1 of several charges of “related
offenses” would be quite rare. In the rare case in which there is
such a lack of evidence, the appropriate remedy would be a motion
for continuance of all pending charges of related offenses, showing
that the lack of evidence could probably be cured by a reasonable
delay. The committee does not favor separate trials of charges of
related offenses over the defendant’s objection.

(c) Florida has no similar rule. Omits exception in ABA
Standard in case “the prosecuting attorney did not have sufficient
evidence to warrant trying (the) offense” or upon a finding that “the
ends of justice would be defeated if the motion was granted.” See
comment on (b). The rule is not intended to restrict defendant’s
substantive rights.

(d) Florida has no similar rule. The first sentence of ABA
Standard is considered by the committee to state a rule of
substantive law and is omitted as unnecessary.

1977 Amendment. The changes from the prior rule are
intended to provide equal treatment for both the state and the
defendant.