FREDERICK P. CHAPIN, III, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Chapin appeals his convictions for third-degree felony murder and trafficking in cannabis, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and arguing double jeopardy bars simultaneous conviction for both the underlying felony and felony murder based on the same felony. The court affirms the suppression denial but vacates the trafficking conviction as violating double jeopardy, certifying the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress because the inaccurate statements were made in good faith and not with reckless disregard for the truth under Franks v. Delaware. However, the court agreed with the double jeopardy argument and vacated Chapin's conviction for trafficking, holding that double jeopardy bars convictions for both an underlying felony and felony murder based on the same felony.
[1] A search warrant affidavit containing inaccurate statements is valid if the inaccuracies were made in good faith and not with reckless disregard for the truth.
[2] Double jeopardy bars convictions and sentences for necessarily included lesser offenses.
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“We affirm the denial of Chapin's motion to suppress because we find the record supports the trial judge's determination that the inaccurate statements made in the search warrant affidavit were made by the police officers in good faith, and not with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating inaccurate search warrant affidavits under Franks v. Delaware
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapin was convicted of third-degree felony murder and trafficking in cannabis. Police obtained a search warrant for his locked bedroom that contained…
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 Trafficking In Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Chapin appeals from his convictions and sentences for third degree felony murder1 and trafficking in cannabis.2 The trial ’ court sentenced Chapin to ten years imprisonment for each offense, to be served concurrently. The issues on appeal are whether the trial court erred in denying Chapin’s motion to suppress evidence of contraband found in his locked bedroom, and whether Chapin’s sentences and convictions for both crimes are barred by double jeopardy, as trafficking is the underlying felony for the felony murder conviction.
We affirm the denial of Chapin’s motion to suppress because we find the record supports the trial judge’s determination that the inaccurate statements made in the search warrant affidavit were made by the police officers in good faith, and not with reckless disregard for the truth. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1979). These issues were in dispute at the hearing on the motion to suppress and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. DeConingh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 995, 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984).
We agree, however, with Chapin’s double jeopardy argument. In Snowden v. State, 449 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted, Case No. 65,179 (Fla. August 24, 1984), we held that a trial court erred in convicting and sentencing a criminal defendant for grand theft in addition to third degree felony murder, which was based on the grand theft as the underlying felony. We continue to rely upon Bell v. State, 437 So. 2d 1057 (Fla.1983) for the view that double jeopardy, U.S. CONST. amend. V; Art. I, § 9 Fla. Const., bars convictions as well as sentences for necessarily included lesser offenses and upon State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981) for the view that the underlying felony is a necessarily included offense of a felony murder based on the same felony. See Gonzales v. State, 449 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Wicker v. State, 445 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
However, we acknowledge the uncertainty in the ease law3 and we certify the following to our Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) as a question of great public importance.
DOES THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BAR CONVICTION AND SENTENCING FOR BOTH THE UNDERLYING FELONY AND A FELONY MURDER CHARGE BASED ON THE SAME FELONY IN THE CONTEXT OF A SINGLE (RATHER THAN SUCCESSIVE) CRIMINAL PROCEEDING?
Accordingly we vacate Chapin’s sentence and conviction for the underlying felony of trafficking and otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, JJ., concur. . § 782.04(4), Fla.Stat. (1983).
. § 893.135, Fla.Stat. (1983).
. See Ohio v. Johnson, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984); State v. Gibson, 452 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Chapin, 486 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1986)…SHAW, Justice. We have jurisdiction to review Chapin v. State, 458 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), based on a certified question of great public importance.1 Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Before answering the certified question brought to us by the state’s petition, we address an issue raised by Chapin in his cross petition…
-
Noguet v. State, 508 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…501 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005, 104 S.Ct. 995, 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984); State v. Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (en banc); Walcott v. State, 460 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), aff'd 472 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1985); Chapin v. State, 458 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), modified on other grounds, 486 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1986). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1984)
- Bell v. State, 437 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Gibson, 452 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1984)
- Gonzalez v. State, 449 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Snowden v. State, 449 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Wicker v. State, 445 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)