LIZZIE WASHINGTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Lizzie Washington was convicted of larceny and receiving stolen goods under a single information containing two counts. She appealed, challenging the validity of the information and claiming the jury verdict was indefinite. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that two separate counts charging distinct but kindred felonies in a single information are permissible and that a general guilty verdict validly convicts on both counts.
The court held that the information was valid because it contained two separate, complete, and self-contained counts charging two distinct but similar and kindred felonies with no repugnancy or inconsistency between them. A general guilty verdict on such an information constitutes a valid conviction of both crimes, and the judge may sentence for either crime separately or treat the conviction as being for the highest crime charged and impose one appropriate penalty.
“There is no repugnancy or inconsistency between the two counts of the information, as there was in the case of Butler and Chapman v. State, 25 Fla. 347, 6 South. Rep. 67, neither does it, like the indictment in McGahagin v. State, 17 Fla. 665, charge in a single count two distinct offenses for which different punishments are prescribed, but it, in two separate counts charges two distinct, but similar and kindred felonies.”
Establishes the validity of the two-count information by distinguishing it from cases with repugnant or inconsistent counts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington was charged in a single information with two counts: (1) larceny of two skirts valued at sixteen dollars each belonging to P.N. Richardson,…
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 Distinct Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The plaintiff in error was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval county, for the crime of larceny and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. There was but one information filed, but it contained two counts. The first count charged the larceny of two skirts, eaoh of the value of sixteen dollars of the property of P. N. Richardson; the second count charges her with feloniously having, receiving, buying and aiding in the concealment of two skirts the property of P. N. Richardson each of the value of eight dollars, aggregating sixteen dollars in value, well knowing that the same had before that been stolen, taken and carried away. To this information she pleaded not guilty. The trial resulted in the following verdict: “Jacksonville, Fla., Sept. 6th, 1905. We the jury find the defendant guilty.” Upon this verdict the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the State prison for the period of one year*, and from this judgment seeks relief here by writ of error. The errors assigned are: 1st. That the court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment. 2nd. That the verdict of the jury was indefinite and left the court to elect which count he would apply the verdict to.
The motion in arrest of judgment was upon the following grounds: “Because the information upon which she was tried charges her in two separate counts with different offenses to which different penalties are attached by law, to-wit: In the first count defendant is charged with petit larceny which is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail, or by fine; and in the second count she is charged with buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, which is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State prison, or by fine, the maximum fine being $500 and maximum fine under the first count being $100; and because no valid sentence of the law can be passed against defendant upon said information.”
There was no error in the denial of this motion in arrest of judgment. There is no repugnancy or inconsistency between the two counts of the information, as there was in the case of Butler and Chapman v. State, 25 Fla. 347, 6 South. Rep. 67, neither does it, like the indictment in McGahagin v. State, 17 Fla. 665, charge in a single count two distinct offenses for which different punishments are prescribed, but it, in two separate counts charges two distinct, but similar and kindred felonies. The first count charges the larceny of two skirts each of the value of sixteen dollars aggregating thirty-two dollars, which under the provisions of Section one of Chapter 4395, Laws of 1895, constitutes grand larceny, and is made a felony, the maximum punishment prescribed for which being imprisonment for five years in the State penitentiary, or twelve months in the county jail, or fine of $1000. The second count charges the felonious receiving and concealment, with knowledge that they had been stolen, of two other and different skirts each of the value of eight dollars aggregating sixteen dollars, which last mentioned crime is also made a felony by Section 2451, Revised Statutes, the maximum punishment prescribed for which being imprisonment for five years in State prison, or five hundred dollars fine. Both counts of the information are complete and perfect within themselves, each of them, independently of the other, completely and fully charging its own respective crime. The verdict was a general one of guilty, which, in effect, was a conviction of the defendant of both of the two separate crimes charged in the information, and the sentences of imprisonment may have been for five years for each of these two distinct offenses. Cribb v. State, 9 Fla. 406; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 509, 28 South. Rep. 775; Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669; 1 Bishop’s New Crim. Proc. Secs. 1325, 1326, 1327. Or the judge may, as he did do in this case, have treated the conviction as being one crime, the highest charged in the information, and impose one legal appropriate penalty therefor. Finding no error the judgment of the Criminal Court of Record of Duval county in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the county of Duval, the plaintiff in error having been adjudged to be insolvent.
Hockee and Parkhill, JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…iew here. . In fact, both the rules and statutes of this state have contemplated the imposition either of consecutive or concurrent sentences as to each. See § 921.16, Fla.Stat. (1971); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.722. . See, for example, Washington v. State, 51 Fla. 137, 40 So. 765 (1906). . Although not affecting this case, we note that the Legislature has now abolished general sentences in the vast majority of cases. § 775.-021(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1976). . The criticism is that general sentences undercut the re…
-
Ellis Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…h 9, 1973; Norwood v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 427; Wheeler v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 364; Williams v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So. 2d 766; Young v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So. 2d 761; Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190; Washington v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 137, 40 So.765; Sparks v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 256 So. 2d 537; Martin v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1971, 251 So. 2d 283; Keenan v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 253 So. 2d 273; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 253 So. 2d 459; Yost v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 243…
-
O'Neal v. State, 54 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1907)…and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen in the other count, there can be a verdict convicting the defendant on both counts. In such a case the court may legally impose separate sentences for each offense. See Washington v. State, 51 Fla. 137, 40 South. Rep. 725. It is argued that the verdict is indefinite and void, and as the court failed to have it made certain by amendment before the jury were discharged it is a nullity and no valid judgment can be entered thereon. The verdict attem…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Claiborn Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1880)
- McGahagin v. State, 17 Fla. 665 (Fla. 1880)
- Butler v. State, 25 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1889)
- Long v. State, 42 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1900)