LINO ALONSO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 information was not vague, the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, and the statements were admissible.
The appellant was convicted of sexual battery and lewd, lascivious, indecent assault. He appealed, arguing the information was vague, his convictions …
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 Waiver Of Miranda Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lino Alonso appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a minor less than twelve years old and for lewd, lascivious, indecent assault upon a child. We affirm.
Alonso argues that the Information should have been dismissed for vagueness because it does not specify exactly when he molested the child. We disagree. The Information does not lack specificity and does not require dismissal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(d)(3). See State v. Jones, 539 So. 2d 535, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“It is not necessary that the exact date of the offense be alleged in an information if that date is not known. It is sufficient to allege that the offense occurred within stated specific time limits.”).
Alonso next argues that his convictions on both counts violate double jeopardy. Alonso is mistaken; the acts charged were distinct, occurred at different times, and the charges were supported by evidence. See Morman v. State, 811 So. 2d 714, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (similar acts sufficiently separated by time did not involve double jeopardy); see also Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Alonso further argues that his statements to the polygraph examiner and the detective should have been excluded as evidence. This argument also lacks merit. Alonso’s statements were voluntary. Before Alonso made any statements to the polygraph examiner, he was read his Miranda rights and signed a Miranda waiver form. We further find that Alonso was not coerced. See La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. State, 971 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…tences on Counts I and IV were each based on the same episode, thus violating double jeopardy. We review this issue de novo, concluding that no double jeopardy violation occurred. State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167, 1171 (Fla.2006). In Alonso v. State, 834 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the Third District held that multiple convictions based on distinctly charged acts occurring at different times, which are supported by competent, substantial evidence, do not violate double jeopardy. In Saavedra v. State, this c…
-
Lino Alonso v. State, 879 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…onviction relief, arguing that his case proceeded to trial in violation of a stay emanating from this court. The premise of defendant’s argument is incorrect. While criminal charges were pending against the defendant, see generally Alonso v. State, 834 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the defendant filed a pro se motion in the trial court requesting discharge under the speedy trial rule. After discharge was denied, the defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of prohibition in this court. This court entered…
Authorities Cited
- Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Morman v. State, 811 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- la Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Jones, 539 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)