NEAL WILLIAM SWAIN, III, 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 the appellant's convictions were not subject to double jeopardy, but the judgment contained a scrivener's error.
[1] A conviction for armed burglary with a firearm does not constitute double jeopardy when the defendant was charged with armed burglary with assault or battery, if the jury…
[2] A scrivener's error in a judgment referencing an incorrect statutory subsection for a conviction can be corrected on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with kidnapping, armed burglary with assault or battery, and aggravated assault with a firearm. The jury found him guilty of…
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 Armed Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Neal William Swain, III, appeals his judgment and sentence. Swain raises six issues on appeal, one of which merits discussion. Swain alleges that his convictions for both armed burglary with assault or battery and aggravated assault with a firearm constitute double jeopardy. We disagree with Swain’s double jeopardy argument because Swain was convicted of armed burglary with a firearm, not armed burglary with assault or battery as charged.1 However, the judgment does contain a scrivener’s error which should be corrected.
The information charged Swain with one count of armed kidnapping in violation of section 787.01(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1997); one count of armed burglary with assault or battery in violation of sections 810.02(1), 810.02(2)(a), and 810.02(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997); and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of sections 775.087 and 784.021, Florida Statutes (1997). The jury found Swain guilty of armed kidnapping pursuant to section 787.01(l)(a); armed burglary with a firearm pursuant to sections 810.02(1) and 810.02(2)(b); and aggravated assault with a firearm pursuant to sections 775.087 and 784.021. The judgment contains a scrivener’s error in that it references section 810.02(2) (a) (burglary with assault or battery). We affirm Swain’s convictions; however, we remand for the trial court to remove the reference to section 810.02(2)(a) from the judgment.
Convictions affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener’s error. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . The State incorrectly charged Swain with armed burglary with assault or battery as a single offense. The charge consists of two separate offenses: 1) armed burglary with a firearm pursuant to section 810.02(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997); and 2) burglary with assault or battery pursuant to section 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). Each offense requires an element of proof which the other does not; thus, the offenses should have been charged separately. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Safford P. Bronson v. State, 768 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…lling, structure, or conveyance, with explosives or a dangerous weapon.” Accordingly, the principle in Lyles does not apply, because Bronson’s offense of armed burglary does not include the element of battery. The Second District in Swain v. State, 744 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), rejected Swain’s claim that his convictions for armed burglary and aggravated assault with a firearm constituted double jeopardy. The court stated that regardless of the charging document, “Swain was convicted of armed burglary w…
-
Korzan D. Dunkley v. State, 138 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…iction challenges to his sentence and untimely challenges to his convictions. The claims raised in this appeal are without merit. See Clark v. State, 72 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Mann v. State, 851 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Swain v. State, 744 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Robinson v. State, 393 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellant is cautioned that filing of frivolous pleadings may result in the sanction of no longer accepting his pro se filings and may result in referral to the Department…
Authorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)