MICHAEL S. HILTON, 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 a defendant's failure to appear at a single hearing can only be convicted and punished as one offense, and that the trial court erred in summarily denying relief on this double jeopardy claim.
Michael S. Hilton was convicted of three counts of failure to appear, despite only failing to appear on one occasion for a sentencing hearing on three…
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 Failure To Appear cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael S. Hilton appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He raises multiple double jeopardy concerns; only one has merit.
In Case No. 01-30054, Hilton was convicted of three counts of failure to appear when he failed to appear on only one occasion for a sentencing hearing on three crimes.
In McGee v. State, 438 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the defendant failed to appear for a single pretrial conference involving seven cases. The defendant was charged with seven counts of failure to appear. The First District held that a defendant’s failure to appear at a single hearing can only be convicted and punished as one offense. The gravamen of the offense is the failure to appear at the scheduled place and time, not the number of offenses pending and scheduled for that particular occasion. See also Miles v. State, 418 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
We affirm the denial of Hilton s 3.850 motion with the exception that we find that the trial court erred by summarily denying relief with respect to the three convictions for failure to appear. We grant to the trial court an opportunity on remand to attach portions of the record showing that Hilton waived the double-jeopardy argument by entering into a plea agreement for a specified sentence. See, e.g., Melvin v. State, 645 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1994); Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994). Otherwise, the trial court is directed to vacate two of three convictions for failure to appear and to re-sentence accordingly.
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED.
COBB, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ork where children regularly congregate, even if he could show that he could do so without threatening the public safety. This circumstance distinguishes the present case from Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) and Freeland v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). [*592] Ordinarily, not even non-penal7 statutes can divest citizens of substantive rights retroactively. See generally Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 312 n. 8, and 315-16, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945); Willi…
-
Givens v. State, 851 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. In addition, the First and Fourth Districts have held that section 943.0435 is procedural in nature and does not violate the Ex [*815] Post Facto Clause. See Freeland v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Simmons v. State, 753 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We agree and hold that the application of section 943.0435 to Givens does not violate ex post facto principles. Accordingly, we affirm Givens’ judgment and sentence for failu…
-
Boyer v. State, 946 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…term is used-in rule 3.800(a). See Gonzalez v. State, 808 So. 2d 1265 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); Walker v. State, 718 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Freeland v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the registration and reporting requirements of the Sexual Predator Act are “regulatory and procedural in nature and do not violate the ex post facto clause.”). Consequently, Appellant cannot challenge [*76] his desi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Melvin v. State, 645 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1994)
- Miles v. State, 418 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- McGEE v. State, 438 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)