DAVID YOUNG, 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.
Double jeopardy principles preclude conviction for both burglary with a battery and simple battery when the jury verdict form is ambiguous.
The defendant was convicted of burglary of a conveyance with an assault or battery and simple battery. The jury verdict form did not specify whether t…
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 Simple Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm, without discussion, Young’s conviction for burglary of a conveyance with an assault or a battery.1 However, double jeopardy principles preclude Young’s conviction for simple battery.
In the instant case, the verdict form gave no indication as to whether the jury found that Young had committed a “burglary with an assault,” or a “burglary with a battery.” We reverse as we must read the verdict in a manner that would give the benefit of the doubt to Young. State v. Reardon, 763 So.2d 418, 419 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Convictions for both burglary with a battery and for the lesser included offense of battery violate double jeopardy. See, e.g., West v. State, 21 So.3d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Bracey v. State, 985 So.2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
The facts in this case, as acknowledged by the State, are almost indistinguishable from the factual scenario addressed in Torna v. State, 742 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). There, the jury similarly found the defendant guilty of burglary with an assault or a battery and of simple battery. The Toma court stated:
This verdict form is the crux of the problem here as it contained no indication as to whether the jury had found that Torna had committed a ‘burglary with an assault,’ or a ‘burglary with a battery.’ Given Torna’s additional conviction of ‘battery,’ the determination of ‘with an assault’ or ‘with a battery’ was necessary so as to not run afoul of the double jeopardy issue. Since the determination was not made, and we cannot now guess what the jury was thinking, we must conclude that Torna was indeed subjected to double jeopardy by his conviction of both ‘burglary with an assault and/or battery’ and ‘battery.’
Young cannot properly be convicted of both offenses. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction of (simple) battery.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Latimer v. State, 44 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…e verdict in a manner which would give the benefit of the doubt to” the defendant, State v. Reardon, 763 So. 2d 418, 419 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), we conclude that the convictions for both robbery and simple assault cannot stand. Cf. Young v. State, 43 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); West v. State, 21 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Bracey v. State, 985 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Torna v. State, 742 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse the assault conviction and remand with instruction…
-
Reeves v. State, 57 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…approved by, 645 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1994), and other authorities, we conclude that a conviction for both armed burglary and possession of a destructive device under the facts of the present case violates double jeopardy principles. See Young v. State, 43 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); State v. Reardon, 763 So. 2d 418, 419 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review dismissed, 806 So. 2d 446 (Fla.2002). As we are required under the principle of lenity to read the verdicts rendered in the present case in a manner that wou…
-
Sanders v. State, 74 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ble to tell from the verdict form if the jury found that the defendant had committed two distinct batteries or only a single battery, the verdict must be read in a manner that would give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. See Young v. State, 43 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Torna v. State, 742 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). According [*562] ly, we vacate the conviction of (simple) battery. AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED. TORPY,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Reardon, 763 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Torna v. State, 742 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- West v. State, 21 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Smith v. State, 985 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Bracey v. State, 985 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)