PAUL A. BOLDS, 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 conviction on Count III must be reversed due to double jeopardy, while the conviction on Count II is affirmed because the defendant failed to object to the evidence at trial.
Appellant was convicted of two counts of armed robbery. The information contained identical language for Counts II and III, leading to a double jeopar…
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 Collateral Crime Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of armed robbery. The State concedes that appellant’s conviction and sentence on Count III must be reversed because Counts II and III of the information contain identical language. Since the information was never amended, either orally or in writing, appellant has been improperly subjected to double jeopardy in being twice convicted for the same offense. See Bolds v. State, 723 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Appellant also argues that his conviction and sentence on Count II should be reversed because his conviction was based on the improper introduction of collateral crimes evidence regarding appellant’s participation in another crime. A review of the record reveals that appellant never objected to this testimony at trial. Therefore, any error is waived.
Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count II is affirmed; his conviction as to Count III is reversed and his sentence vacated. The case is remanded for resentencing in the event that the vacation of appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count III affects the permissible sentence on his remaining conviction.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Suarez v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 723 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Bolds v. State, 723 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)