ROBERT GORDON HOSFORD, 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.
The court held that multiple convictions for a single DUI incident violate double jeopardy protections when the charging document does not specify different offenses.
Robert Hosford was charged with three identical counts of felony DUI arising from a single incident. The charging document did not specify DUI with pr…
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 Felony Dui cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Gordon Hosford appeals, arguing that two of his three DUI convictions violate the proscription against double jeopardy. We agree and reverse.
Hosford was charged with violating paragraph 316.193(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), in each of the three counts of felony DUI. The language used in each count of the information was identical; none contained additional language charging a DUI with property damage or DUI with serious bodily injury. Thus, the charging document charges Hos-ford with three identical DUI offenses arising out of a single incident.
We therefore must agree that Hosford improperly received multiple convictions for one incident of driving under the influence. Had Hosford been charged, as the State contends it intended, with two counts of DUI bodily injury, one for each of two persons injured, and one count of DUI property damage, the convictions would have been proper. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996) (upholding conviction for two counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI with serious bodily injury stemming from deaths of two people and injury of a third by drunk driver). This was not the case, however. The State charged Hosford with three counts of felony DUI (based upon a fourth conviction) for his one act of driving inebriated.
We reverse with directions to vacate two of the three DUI convictions. Because Hos-ford’s guideline scoresheet will be-affected, we remand for resentencing on the remaining DUI conviction and the additional convictions for failing to stop at an accident scene resulting in property damages and driving with a suspended, revoked or cancelled license.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
DAUKSCH, GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Velazco v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…I with injuries or property damage may be obtained against a defendant where there are several persons injured and different property damaged, caused by a defendant driving under the influence as the result of one driving episode); Hosford v. State, 682 So. 2d 218, 218-19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“Had [the defendant] been charged . . . with two counts of DUI bodily injury . . . and one count of DUI property damage, the convictions would have been proper.”) (citation omitted); State v. Wright, 546 So. 2d 798, 799…
-
Rodriguez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2023)…ary hearing on two claims in the amended motion, (Doc. 24-1 at 191–92), and denied Rodriguez’s motion to 2 At sentencing, the trial court determined that the five misdemeanor counts for reckless driving merged into one count. (Doc. 24-4 at 79.) , 682 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The trial court declined to impose a sentence on the merged count. (Doc. 24-4 at 79.) further amend the motion with additional claims, (Doc. 24-1 at 333). At the evidentiary hearing, Rodriguez did not present evidence to prove…
Authorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)