JIMMY SANDERS, 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.
Jimmy Sanders was convicted of multiple offenses including aggravated assault, improper exhibition of a weapon (two counts), possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and possession by a convicted felon. Sanders appealed arguing that his separate convictions for improper exhibition of a weapon violated double jeopardy, but the court affirmed, finding the two exhibitions of the weapon were sufficiently separated in time and space to constitute distinct criminal acts.
The court held that the two convictions for improper exhibition of a weapon do not violate double jeopardy because they were based on two entirely discrete actions sufficiently separate in time and space: the first offense against Nancy Carl and the second offense against Diane Sanders, occurring several moments apart.
[1] A double jeopardy violation is a fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal.
[2] Multiple convictions based on different actions do not amount to double jeopardy, even if the actions are closely connected in space and time.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Multiple convictions based on different actions, however, need not amount to double jeopardy, even where the actions are closely connected in space and time.”
Establishes the foundational principle that proximity in time and space does not automatically trigger double jeopardy protections when the actions are distinct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanders approached his ex-wife Diane at her workplace while she was with a customer, Nancy Carl. While holding a shotgun, Sanders threatened to kill D…
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 Possession Of A Short-Barreled Shotgun cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We affirm Sanders’ conviction and sentence. He was convicted on separate counts of aggravated assault (a lesser-included offense of the charged attempted first-degree murder), improper exhibition of a weapon, as charged in the information, improper exhibition of a weapon (a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon), possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and possession by a convicted felon. Sanders asserts that his conviction on counts II and III for improper exhibition of a weapon constitutes double jeopardy.
The record reflects that Sanders approached one of the victims, Diane Sanders, his ex-wife, at her place of employment. She had recently told him that he could no longer see her or their children. Diane was waiting on a customer, Nancy Carl. Sanders came up behind them and spun Diane around by her shoulder. Sanders was holding a shotgun and told Diane he was going to kill her. The gun was pointed at the faces of both Diane and the customer. Diane pushed Nancy away and told her to run. In the course of trying to escape, Diane fell. Sanders grabbed Diane by the arm and pulled her back toward him. He then grabbed her by the throat and pushed her, causing her to fall through a glass table onto the floor. As Diane laid on the floor, Sanders stood over her with a gun pointed at her chest. He pulled the trigger, but no shot was fired. Diane then grabbed the barrel of the gun and knocked it loose. She was struggling with Sanders to keep him from reaching the gun when help arrived. Sanders admitted that he came to the store to kill Diane.
Sanders claims that the separate convictions for improper exhibition of a weapon constitute double jeopardy. He failed to raise the issue below; however, a double jeopardy violation is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal. Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Multiple convictions based on different actions, however, need not amount to double jeopardy, even where the actions are closely connected in space and time. E.g. Patterson v. State, 637 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Watford v. State, 525 So. 2d 484, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
This case is distinguishable from Vance v. State, 472 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1985), Green v. State, 706 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Canion v. State, 661 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), relied on by Sanders. In each of those instances, the defendants engaged a group of persons in one incident at one time and place. Vance, Green, and Canion involved only one illegal act.
Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, permits conviction and sentence for separate criminal offenses committed within one criminal transaction:
(4)(a) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense....
(b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent.
See also Nicholson v. State, 757 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (recognizing that there is no double jeopardy bar precluding separate charges where the defendant threw a brick through the rear sliding door of a house followed immediately by his throwing a brick through a front window).
Here, the multiple convictions were based on two entirely discrete actions sufficiently separate in time and space to support dual convictions; the. first, charged in count II, for the offense against Nancy and the second, several moments later, charged in count III, for the offense against Diane. We conclude that there was a sufficient separation in time and space between the acts charged in counts II and III to preclude application of double jeopardy.
As to all other issues raised, we also find no reversible error or abuse of discretion. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
POLEN, C.J. and GROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desire v. State, 829 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…sion or introduction of the substance. Although the defendant failed to argue his double jeopardy claim before the trial court, we review double jeopardy claims as fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal. Sanders v. State, 795 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). To assess whether a double jeopardy violation has occurred when a defendant is convicted of more than one charge, the court must determine “whether each [*950] offense has an element that the other does not.” Gordon v. State, 78…
-
Thomas v. State, 101 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…sser-included offense permits only a single conviction. See Roberts v. State, 47 So. 3d 380, 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Bass v. State, 739 So. 2d 1243, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The State argues that this case is factually similar to Sanders v. State, 795 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), which allowed multiple convictions for improper exhibition of a firearm when those convictions were based on entirely discreet actions sufficiently separate in time and space, to support dual convictions. Having carefully consid…
-
Russo v. State, 814 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…KLEIN, J. The state has moved for en banc rehearing, arguing that this opinion conflicts with another recent opinion of this court, Sanders v. State, 795 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In Sanders this court held that where a defendant pointed a gun at his ex-wife and another person and, during a physical altercation with his ex-wife moments later, pointed the gun at her, two convictions for improper exhibition…
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Nicholson v. State, 757 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Major Vance v. State, 472 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1985)
- Canion v. State, 661 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Green v. State, 706 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Watford v. State, 525 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Patterson v. State, 637 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)