JULIUS JAMALL NIXON, 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 the conviction for count eleven is reversed due to insufficient evidence, but affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences.
Julius Nixon appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple felonies. He argued double jeopardy regarding count eleven and discrepancies between …
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 Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
Julius Nixon appeals his convictions and sentences for six counts of sexual battery with a firearm, armed burglary of a conveyance, robbery with a firearm, and two counts of armed kidnapping. We find merit in two of the four issues he raises.
Contrary to Nixon’s argument under issue two, his conviction of count eleven does not violate his double jeopardy rights because count eleven alleged an offense separate and distinct from the offense alleged in count nine. However, we must reverse Nixon’s conviction of count eleven because it is not supported by the evidence. While Nixon’s motion for judgment of acquittal did not raise this issue, it is fundamental error for a defendant to be convicted of an offense that did not take place. See Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Conviction of a crime which did not take place is a fundamental error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below.”).
Under issue four, Nixon argues that several of his written sentences do not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of those sentences. This issue appears to have merit. However, Nixon failed to preserve this issue below, and we therefore do not have jurisdiction to address it. Accordingly, we affirm his sentences without prejudice to his right to file a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to either Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a) or the trial court’s right to correct the sentences on its own motion.
We reverse Nixon’s conviction of count 11 and remand for resentencing; we affirm his remaining convictions and sentences.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
ALTENBERND and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casais v. State, 204 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, a “gift card” is not a “credit card” under the applicable statute, a guilty verdict cannot be sustained because the Appellant did not commit the crime of uttering a forged credit card. See Nixon v. State, 10 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[I]t is fundamental error for a defendant to be convicted of an offense that did not take place.” (citing Harris v. State, 647 So. 2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994))); Griffin v. State, 705 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. State, 647 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)