ANTHONY SCOTT GRUBB, 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 Grubb appealed his convictions for multiple crimes, challenging whether he was a principal and whether his dual burglary convictions violated double jeopardy protections. The court rejected his principal liability argument but agreed that convicting him of both armed burglary and burglary with assault or battery based on a single forced entry violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The court rejected Grubb's principal liability argument without discussion. However, the court held that dual convictions for armed burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery based on a single forced entry violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, regardless of whether there are multiple victims, because it is the number of forced entries that triggers burglary charges, not the number of victims.
[1] Convictions for both armed burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy whe…
[2] The number of victims does not determine the propriety of dual burglary convictions; rather, it is the number of forced entries that triggers burglary charges.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Grubb correctly argues that convictions for both armed burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy if they are based on a single forced entry.”
Establishes the core holding that dual burglary convictions from one entry violate double jeopardy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Grubb was convicted of kidnapping, armed false imprisonment, armed burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, …
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling With An Assault Or Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Anthony Grubb seeks review of his convictions and sentences for kidnapping, armed false imprisonment, armed burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, carjacking, and two counts of robbery. Grubb argues that the trial court erred in finding he was a principal to the crimes. Grubb also argues that his two convictions for burglary violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We reject Grubb’s first argument without discussion. Because Grubb’s second argument has merit, we reverse for the court to strike one of his burglary convictions.
Grubb correctly argues that convictions for both armed burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy if they are based on a single forced entry. Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla.1983); McKinney v. State, 860 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Docanto v. State, 811 So. 2d 790, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Trotman v. State, 545 So. 2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The State argues that the dual convictions are proper because they involve two victims. We reject 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 victims. Thus, any such language is, at best, dicta. We also reject the State’s argument that the double jeopardy violation constitutes harmless error. See Butler v. State, 760 So. 2d 151, 151-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Because Grubb’s convictions for armed burglary of a dwelling and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery constitute double jeopardy, we reverse. On remand, the trial court shall strike one of the two burglary convictions and sentences. We affirm the remainder of Grubb’s convictions and sentences.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CANADY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983)
- Earnest Trotman v. State, 545 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Keyuhn Chambers v. State, 924 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- 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)
- Butler v. State, 760 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)