JACK PHILLIP CATLETT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the admission of similar fact evidence was not reversible error, but a conviction for possession of a firearm violated double jeopardy principles.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and possession of a firearm. The State introduced evidence of another robbery as similar fact evidence. T…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm While Engaged In A Criminal Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was a suspect in three convenience store armed robberies. At trial for one of the offenses, the State was permitted to present to the jury evidence of the defendant’s involvement in another of the robberies as similar fact evidence of other crimes.1 In this appeal the defendant alleges reversible error in (1) a police officer’s mention of the defendant’s involvement in “three situations,” rather than two offenses, (2) the prosecutor’s argument that the defendant looked different at trial than on the date of the offense and his arrest, and (3) the conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense and robbery with a firearm violates double jeopardy laws.
After a thorough examination of the record, we are not persuaded that reversible error occurred. Further, the evidence of guilt for the charged offense was overwhelming. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). On the third point the State agrees that Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987), requires that the conviction and sentence for possession of firearm be vacated.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of the sentence.
. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); § 90.404(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Catlett v. State, 627 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…te judgment and sentence pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Prior to the filing of these Rule 3.850 motions, this court affirmed on direct appeal the defendant’s armed robbery convictions and sentences entered at two separate trials. Catlett v. State, 568 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Catlett v. State, 567 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We affirm the orders under review because, simply stated, the allegations of the defendant’s motions to vacate, even if true, do not state a sufficient ground for collateral a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)