MIRANDA DECKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2011-07-27
No. 4D10-631
DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
67 So. 3d 374 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Topics
Adequate Defense Statement Of Particulars Surprise Official Misconduct

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequate Defense cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her convictions for official misconduct and falsifying records. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a statement of particulars, because the motion essentially asked the state to prove its entire case before trial, and appellant failed to demonstrate a lack of notice, prejudice, surprise, or an inability to prepare an adequate defense. See Brown v. State, 473 So.2d 1260 (Fla.1985); Harrison v. State, 557 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, we find that appellant’s dual convictions -violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as both offenses arose out of the same factual event, and each offense does not contain a separate element not contained within the other. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for falsifying records.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ermino Escobedo-Muniz v. State, 74 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …plea, or, if his plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced in accordance with the score-sheet, then his remedy would be to file a sworn rule 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea as involuntary or to enforce the agreement. See O’Hearn v. State, 67 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because the instant appeal was pending when the two-year time period for filing a timely rule 3.850 motion expired, Defendant, if he chooses to do so, shall have thirty days from the issuance of the mandate in this case within…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw