RYAN TODD POWERS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court reversed convictions for elder exploitation, finding they violated double jeopardy protections. The court held that two counts based on the same conduct and two other counts based on the same property conveyance constituted the same offense, thus violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The court found that two counts charging exploitation based on obtaining property from an elderly person and two counts charging exploitation based on breaching a fiduciary duty to an elderly person, when both involved the same time period, bank accounts, and property respectively, constituted the same offense and violated double jeopardy.
[1] Double jeopardy violations constitute fundamental error and may be raised for the first time on appeal when the violation is apparent on the face of the charging document…
[2] When determining whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy protections, an appellate court considers only the charging document and not the entire trial record…
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 intelligence“Because the information does not reflect that count one is based on conduct separate and distinct from count two, convictions for both offenses violate double jeopardy.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for finding a double jeopardy violation between two counts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRyan Todd Powers was convicted of four counts of exploiting his elderly parents. He argued that two of the counts constituted the same crime, violatin…
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 Exploitation Of The Elderly cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge. Ryan Todd Powers was convicted of four counts of exploiting his elderly parents in violation of section 825.103, Florida Statutes (2016). He raises five issues on
- 2 - appeal.
We find no merit in four of those issues; however, we agree with Powers' double jeopardy argument and reverse on that issue. Powers argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Information because two of the four counts constitute the same crime and therefore violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
The State contends that this issue is not preserved for our review because Powers' motion to dismiss was directed at a prior version of the information. Although the record confirms the State's contention, this issue is reviewable because double jeopardy violations constitute fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Meythaler v. State, 175 So. 3d 918, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (noting in part that a double jeopardy argument can be raised for the first time on appeal where the double jeopardy violation is apparent on the face of the record).
In determining whether multiple convictions based on the same conduct constitute a violation of double jeopardy, an appellate court may consider only the charging document, not the entire record. Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297, 1303-04 (Fla. 2018); see also Morejon-Medina v. State, 277 So. 3d 1118, 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Here, count one of the Fourth Amended Information charged Powers with exploitation of the elderly under section 825.103(1)(a), which requires proof of obtaining property from an elderly person with the intent to deprive the person of the asset. Count two charged exploitation of the elderly under section 825.103(1)(c), which requires proof that a person breached a fiduciary duty to an elderly person by making an unauthorized appropriation, sale, or transfer of property. Both counts involve the same time period and concern the same bank accounts. Because the information does not reflect that
- 3 - count one is based on conduct separate and distinct from count two, convictions for both offenses violate double jeopardy. See Lee, 258 So. 3d at 1303-04. Counts three and four are charged similarly and relate to the conveyance of the same real property. Thus, like counts one and two, these counts do not constitute separate crimes and violate double jeopardy. See id. Accordingly, we vacate Powers' convictions and sentences on counts two and four and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm Powers' convictions and sentences on the remaining counts.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. KHOUZAM, C.J., and ATKINSON, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stuard Antonio Meythaler v. State, 175 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Sherman v. State, 272 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Hilario Solorzano Medina v. State, 266 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)