DARRYL GILES, 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.
Darryl Giles was convicted of multiple counts including attempted second degree murder (reduced to battery), battery on a law enforcement officer, drug possession, and other offenses. The Fourth District reversed on double jeopardy grounds for dual convictions arising from a single act against the same officer, and on sentencing grounds for miscalculated guidelines and insufficient time-served credit.
The court held that (1) the double jeopardy clause preclires dual convictions when two charges arise out of a single episode and are part of the same offense; (2) the challenge to juror peremptory strikes was without merit; and (3) the trial court must resentence on the drug counts using the correct guideline range of 23.4 to 39 months and must credit Giles with 99 days for time served rather than 34 days.
[1] Double jeopardy precludes dual convictions and sentences for offenses arising from a single act occurring in an uninterrupted sequence.
[2] A defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for both battery as a lesser included offense of attempted murder and battery on a law enforcement officer when both charges…
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 intelligence“Since the battery as a lesser included offense of attempted murder and battery of a law enforcement officer arose out of a single episode and are part of the same offense, double jeopardy precludes dual convictions.”
Establishes the double jeopardy principle that prevents dual convictions when charges arise from a single criminal episode
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGiles was charged with attempted second degree murder with a firearm against Officer Grant, among other charges. At trial, the court granted Giles's m…
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 Resisting Arrest With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Darryl Giles (Giles) was charged by a multi-count information with the following: count I, attempted second degree murder with a firearm (Officer Grant); count II, attempt to deprive an officer of his weapon (Officer Grant); count III, battery on a law enforcement officer (Officer Grant); count IV, battery on a law enforcement officer (Officer Burns); count V, resisting arrest with violence; count VI, possession of cocaine; count VII, possession of hydro-codone, and count VIII, attempted tampering with physical evidence. At the close of the state’s case, Giles moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of attempted second degree murder with a firearm arguing that there had been no evidence of the use of a firearm and that the charge should be reduced to attempted second degree murder.
The trial court granted the motion. Upon submission to the jury, Giles was convicted of battery as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder of Officer Grant; battery on a law enforcement officer (Officer Grant); resisting arrest with violence; possession of cocaine; possession of hydrocodone; and attempted tampering with evidence. Giles was acquitted on counts II and IV. Giles was sentenced on each of the counts for which he was convicted.
Giles raises three points on appeal. First, the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing Giles for both battery as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder and battery on a law enforcement officer (Officer Grant) because it involved the same victim in the same criminal episode and thus constituted double jeopardy. Second, the trial court erred in permitting the state to peremptorily strike three black jurors. Third, Giles’s sentence was based on an incorrectly calculated score sheet and therefore was an illegal sentence and the trial court did not give Giles full credit for time served. We find point two without merit but reverse on points one and three.
As to the first point on appeal, Giles was convicted of battery as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder and battery on a law enforcement officer, both on the same person, Officer Grant.
The trial court sentenced Giles to a period of incarceration on each of these two charges. The battery of Officer Grant and the battery of a law enforcement officer arose from a single act occurring in an uninterrupted sequence. Since the battery as a lesser included offense of attempted murder and battery of a law enforcement officer arose out of a single episode and are part of the same offense, double jeopardy precludes dual convictions. See Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We hold that the double jeopardy clause precludes entry of judgment and sentence on both charges and reverse with directions to vacate the conviction and sentence for battery as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder. See Johnson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
On the third point on appeal the state concedes that the score sheet for counts VI and VII was miscalculated. The range should have been 23.4 to 39 months instead of 32.9 to 54.7 months. Since the trial judge sentenced Giles to 42 months on those two counts, which is outside the correct guideline range, he is entitled to be resentenced on those two counts. The state also concedes that Giles is entitled to 99 days credit for time served as opposed to the 34 days determined by the trial court.
The trial court is directed to resentence on counts VI and VII and to credit Giles with 99 days for time served.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, C.J., and STONE J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haynes v. State, 828 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…t’s conviction for simple battery. Because appellant was convicted of battery of a law enforcement officer as a result of the very same act on which the simple battery conviction is based, the two convictions violate double jeopardy. Giles v. State, 763 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We disagree with the state’s argument that appellant waived this issue by requesting the jury instruction on simple battery because double jeopardy is a fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal. Go-ant…
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Johnson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)