CURTIS STEVENS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that imposing separate sentences for aggravated robbery and for displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony is improper when the firearm display is an element of the robbery.
[1] Separate sentences may not be imposed for robbery and for displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony when the display of the firearm constitutes the element o…
[2] A conviction for displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony is improper when the acts constituting that offense are the same acts used to prove the force elem…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery and of displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court imposed separate sentenc…
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 Double Jeopardy (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before the court on petition for certiorari to review the decision of the district court of appeal in Stevens v. State, 351 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The court granted certiorari because of conflict with Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973). Conflict of decisions gives us jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The state by information charged that the petitioner, on October 25, 1975, committed acts constituting an aggravated robbery under sections 812.13(1) and (2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). A separate count of the information charged that at the same time and place, petitioner and his codefendants “did unlawfully and feloniously display certain firearms” while committing robbery. Thus the latter count alleged a violation of section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1975).
Upon the return of guilty verdicts on both offenses charged, the trial court entered judgment and imposed separate sentences for the two cisimes. Thus the record proper reveals that separate sentences were imposed for these two offenses in a situation where the acts charged with regard to the “display” offense in fact constituted the element of “force, violence, assault, or putting in fear” required to be proved in connection with the robbery offense. We have held that under facts such as these separate sentences for these two offenses are improper. The district court affirmed and created conflict of decisions. Johnson v. State, 366 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1978); Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973).
Petitioner’s other assertion of district court error is without merit.
The decision of the district court affirming the separate sentences for the crimes of robbery and display of a-firearm during the commission of a felony is quashed. The cause is remanded with directions to vacate the sentence imposed for the latter crime. In other respects the decision of the district court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, SUND-BERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 392 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that aggravated battery with a firearm and possession and use of a firearm in the commission of the felony of aggravated battery are identical), and will not support the imposition of separate sentences, Stevens v. State, 372 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1979); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So. 2d 1008 (Fla.1979); Johnson v. State, 366 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1978); Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973); Barner v. State, 390 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Cremade v. State, 367 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979);…
-
Hegstrom v. State, 388 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ion not merely the sentence, be set aside. Prior to Pinder, the Florida Supreme Court, faced with a conviction of a lesser included offense, without discussion left the conviction undisturbed and set aside the sentence. See, e. g., Stevens v. State, 372 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1979); Johnson v. State, 366 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1978); and Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973). See also Gonzalez v. State, 367 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1979). Pre-Pinder District Court decisions were in silent disarray. Corn-pare Ennis v. State, 3…
-
Taylor v. State, 436 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge. We grant the State’s motion for a rehearing en banc to review the panel decision, [*126] which we find to be in conflict with Stevens v. State, 351 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), aff’d and quashed in part on other grounds, 372 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1979).1,2 We vacate the panel decision and affirm the trial court’s order revoking the defendant’s probation. The affidavit for violation of Taylor’s probation charged in pertinent part that “on or about April 24, 1980, in Dade County, Florida…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Johnson v. State, 366 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1978)
- Schifini v. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 351 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Stevens v. State, 351 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)