RAYMOND JOHNSON, A/K/A BOBBY RUTLEDGE, 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.
Court affirmed convictions for grand theft of property and grand theft of firearm from a single purse-snatching act under the amended rule of lenity, but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether dual convictions and sentences for these crimes violate double jeopardy.
Multiple convictions and sentences for grand theft of property and grand theft of a firearm arising from a single act of purse snatching do not violate double jeopardy under the amended rule of lenity in Florida Statutes Section 775.021.
[1] Under the amended rule of lenity in Florida Statutes Section 775.021, a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for both grand theft of property and grand theft of a fir…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of grand theft of property between $300 and $20,000 and grand theft of a firearm based on a single act of purse snatching that…
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 Rule Of Lenity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises, among other issues, a double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions and sentences for grand theft of property between $300 and $20,000 and of a firearm for his single act of purse snatching. See Sections 812.014(2)(c) 1. and 3., Florida Statutes (1987). Since this act occurred after the. amendment to the rule of lenity became effective (see Section 775.-021, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988)), we AFFIRM as to this point. See Davis v. State, 560 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 568 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1990); Porterfield v. State, 567 So. 2d 429, 430 n. 2 (Fla.1990); State v. Hatten, 560 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1990); State v. Burton, 555 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1990); St. Fabre v. State, 548 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1989). However, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:
WHEN A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION IS ALLEGED BASED ON THE CRIMES OF GRAND THEFT OF PROPERTY (BETWEEN $300 AND $20,000) AND OF A FIREARM IN A SINGLE ACT, AND THE CRIMES OCCURRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTION 775.021, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), IS IT UNLAWFUL TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE FOR BOTH CRIMES?
We find that the remaining issues lack merit and AFFIRM them as well.
BOOTH, WENTWORTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Johnson v. State, 574 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which certified the following question of great public importance: WHEN A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION IS ALLEGED BASED ON THE CRIMES OF GRAND THEFT OF PROPERTY (BETWEEN $300 AND $20,000) AND OF A FIREARM IN A SINGLE ACT, AND THE…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1989)
- Davis v. State, 560 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Serpa v. State, 555 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Burton, 555 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1989)
- Camelien ST. Fabre v. State, 548 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- State v. Hatten, 560 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1990)
- Harrison Porterfield v. State, 567 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1990)