WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS, 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.
William H. Williams appealed his convictions for two counts of burglary and assault, challenging the admission of Williams Rule evidence and arguing that double jeopardy prohibited dual convictions arising from a single entry into a dwelling. The court affirmed the admission of the similar-fact evidence but agreed that double jeopardy precluded two separate burglary convictions from a single entry with one victim.
The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the similar-fact evidence because it was probative regarding the material disputed fact of Williams's intent to commit an offense upon entry. However, double jeopardy principles preclude dual convictions and concurrent sentences for two burglary charges arising from a single dwelling entry involving only one victim.
[1] Similar fact evidence is admissible to establish a material disputed fact, such as intent, when its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
[2] Double jeopardy principles preclude dual convictions and sentences for burglary when both charges arise from a single entry of a dwelling and involve only one victim.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We find no abuse of discretion in the court's admitting relevant "similar fact" evidence to establish a material disputed fact: Appellant's intent to commit "an offense" when he entered the victim's enclosed porch on April 21, 2002.”
Establishes that Williams Rule evidence was properly admitted because it was probative of the material fact of intent to commit an offense during entry.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with burglary and assault while armed with a knife (Count One) and burglary and battery (Count Two). The amended information alle…
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 Intent To Commit An Offense Therein cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
William H. Williams (Appellant) appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary and assault while armed with a knife (Count One) and burglary and battery (Count Two). He contends that the trial court reversibly erred in admitting so-called Williams Rule evidence that allegedly lacked any probative value regarding any fact at issue, and in adjudicating him guilty of two counts of burglary and imposing concurrent terms of life imprisonment, where the amended information alleged only one entry and one victim.
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s admitting relevant “similar fact” evidence to establish a material disputed fact: Appellant’s intent to commit “an offense” when he entered the victim’s enclosed porch on April 21, 2002. See §§ 90.404(2)(a) & 810.02(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002); Schwab v. State, 636 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1994); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654, 659-60 (Fla.1959).
As to the second issue, the State concedes (and we agree) that 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 counts of first-degree burglary, one count based on assault and the other based on burglary, where there was only one entry).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM one conviction and sentence and remand to the trial court with instructions to VACATE the other conviction and sentence.
BARFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burkhalter v. State, 111 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…occupants. The State properly concedes that Appellant’s conviction for Count II, armed burglary, must be vacated, as this conviction constitutes a double jeopardy violation. See Gorham v. State, 968 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Williams v. State, 927 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We reverse and remand with directions that the trial court vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence for Count II, armed burglary. All other issues raised on appeal are affirmed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and…
-
McDonald v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983)
- Schwab v. State, 636 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1994)
- Earnest Trotman v. State, 545 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Adaberto Docanto v. State, 811 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- McKINNEY v. State, 860 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Valdez v. State, 915 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)