ANTHONY VALDEZ, 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.
Anthony Valdez was convicted of multiple offenses including two burglary charges arising from a single home invasion. The court reversed one burglary conviction, holding that double jeopardy principles prohibit multiple burglary convictions based on a single entry into a dwelling, even where the alternate bases are assault and being armed.
Double jeopardy principles preclude dual burglary convictions where there is only one entry into a dwelling, regardless of whether the alternate bases for the charges are assault or being armed. The court reversed the burglary conviction in count four while affirming all other convictions.
[1] Double jeopardy protections preclude convictions for both burglary of a dwelling with an assault with a firearm and burglary of a dwelling while armed when there is only…
[2] Where a single entry into a dwelling supports multiple burglary charges, only one burglary conviction may be sustained.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“where there is only one entry there can be but one burglary conviction”
States the core principle that prohibits dual burglary convictions from a single entry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 2003, Valdez forcibly entered an 83-year-old man's home armed with a .38 caliber pistol. He confronted the homeowner, took his handgun and mo…
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 Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Following his convictions on multiple charges, Anthony Valdez raises seven issues, only one of which has merit. Mr. Valdez contends that double jeopardy protections preclude convictions for both burglary of a dwelling with an assault with a firearm and burglary of a dwelling while armed. The State concedes error, acknowledging that where there is only one entry there can be but one burglary conviction. We agree and reverse the burglary conviction in count four but affirm in all other respects.
In the early morning hours of March 9, 2003, West McCracken, then eighty-three years, of age, heard a loud noise and his dogs barking. Concerned that there might be trouble, he went to his bedroom to retrieve his handgun for protection. As he entered the hallway, he was surprised by an intruder armed with a .38 caliber pistol. Mr. McCracken feared for his life when the burglar, Mr. Valdez, aimed the .38 at his forehead. Mr. McCracken had never seen Mr. Valdez before and had not given him permission to enter his home. While inside the house, Mr. Valdez took Mr. McCracken’s gun and some money and demanded, at gunpoint, the keys to Mr. McCracken’s truck so that he could return to the Sulphur Springs area of Tampa. Although Mr. McCracken initially refused to give up the keys because he was worried about where Mr. Valdez might leave his truck, he ultimately surrendered the keys and volunteered to go along. Mr. Valdez drove to several locations before stopping in Sulphur Springs and telling Mr. McCracken where he had. placed the keys. He then fled on foot after warning his victim not to call the police. Mr. McCracken retrieved the keys, drove to his daughter’s home, and called the police.
Mr. Valdez was ultimately apprehended and charged with armed robbery with a firearm, armed carjacking with a firearm, burglary of a dwelling with assault while armed, and armed burglary of a dwelling. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to life in prison for each offense.
All of the crimes Mr. Valdez committed emanated from one entry into the McCracken home. The issue, which we review de novo, is whether the double jeopardy clause prohibits dual burglary convictions in the case of a single entry and a single victim. Our supreme court resolved this question in Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla.1983), observing as follows:
Hawkins next contends that he should not have been found guilty of both burglary counts since each count charged the same crime, although one was grounded in an assault committed during the burglary and the other in carrying a deadly weapon. We agree with this assertion and reverse Hawkins’- conviction on one charge of burglary because the two counts constituted the same statutory offense under section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1979).
More recently, in McKinney v. State, 860 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the First District reviewed jury verdicts and convictions for both burglary of a dwelling with an assault and for armed burglary of a dwelling and concluded that the dual burglary convictions could not stand because there was only one entry into the dwelling. As acknowledged by the State, this case is indistinguishable on this point from Hawkins and McKinney.
Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Valdez’s conviction for burglary with a firearm as alleged in count four and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm without comment Mr. Valdez’s other convictions and sentences in all other respects but note that our disposition in this case renders moot the issue he raised .concerning count four of the information.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keyuhn Chambers v. State, 924 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…bers’ convictions for both armed burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery violate principles of double jeopardy because they were based upon a single forced entry and involved a single victim. See Valdez v. State, 915 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We also conclude that Mr. Chambers is entitled to a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.1 In 2002, when Mr. Chambers was twenty years old, he met the sixteen-year-old victim while she was working at a f…
-
Williams v. State, 927 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…double jeopardy precludes Appellant’s dual convictions and concurrent sentences, where both burglary charges arose from a single entry of the dwelling and involved only one victim. See Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla.1983); Valdez v. State, 915 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); McKinney v. State, 860 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Docanto v. State, 811 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Trotman v. State, 545 So. 2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding that defendant could not be convicted of two cou…
-
Grubb v. State, 940 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ject this argument because it is the number of forced entries that triggers the burglary charges, not the number of victims. To the extent that our previous decisions in Chambers v. State, 924 So. 2d 975, 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Valdez v. State, 915 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), might be construed to imply that dual burglary convictions do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy when there is a single forced entry but multiple victims, we note that those cases did not involve multiple [*…
Authorities Cited
- Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983)
- McKINNEY v. State, 860 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)