NATHANIEL BEARD, 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.
Nathaniel Beard appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his convictions for two conspiracy offenses and raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The appellate court affirms the denial of most claims but reverses and remands regarding the double jeopardy challenge to the dual conspiracy convictions, finding the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and failed to adequately address whether a single agreement or multiple agreements existed.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard (Blockburger analysis) for conspiracy crimes and failed to adequately determine whether a single or multiple agreements existed. For conspiracy, the proper inquiry is whether there was a single 'agreement to commit a criminal act or acts,' which would result in only one conspiracy conviction even if multiple offenses were intended.
[1] A conviction for conspiracy requires proof of a single agreement to commit a criminal act or acts; if a single agreement exists, only one conspiracy conviction is permiss…
[2] The Blockburger analysis, which examines the elements of offenses, is not the correct standard for determining whether multiple conspiracy convictions violate double jeop…
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“if a single agreement exists, only one conspiracy exists even if the conspiracy has as its objectives the commission of multiple offenses”
States the controlling legal standard for determining when multiple conspiracy convictions 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 intelligenceBeard was convicted after jury trial of conspiracy to commit burglary of a dwelling, conspiracy to commit robbery, armed burglary of a dwelling, and a…
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 Double Jeopardy Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Nathaniel Beard timely appeals the summary denial of his 3.850 motion, which raised three ineffective assistance of counsel claims and one claim that his sentence is illegal. Beard’s motion was summarily denied by the trial court. This court affirms the denial of all claims except Beard’s claim that the two conspiracy convictions violate double jeopardy. The attached record does not refute this claim, and it is necessary' to reverse and remand the matter for the trial court to attach those portions of the record that refute the *367claim or to vacate the conviction of the lesser conspiracy offense.
Beard was convicted, after a jury trial, of conspiracy to commit burglary of a dwelling, conspiracy to commit robbery, armed burglary of a dwelling, and attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. In Beard’s appeal of his postconviction motion, he takes issue with the convictions and sentences for the two conspiracy counts. Beard was sentenced to five years at the Department of Corrections on one of the counts and to three years on the second count, both to run consecutively. Beard argues that to be convicted and sentenced on the two conspiracy counts is a violation of double jeopardy.
In denying Beard’s 3.850 motion, the trial court did a Blockburger1 analysis as codified in section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The trial court determined that the conspiracy was a conspiracy to commit two separate crimes and, therefore, the elements of the crimes were not the same. However, the court was incorrect in using the Blockburger analysis for the crime of conspiracy. As it relates to a conspiracy, it must be determined if there is a single “agreement to commit a criminal act or acts, and if a single agreement exists, only one conspiracy exists even if the conspiracy has as its objectives the commission of multiple offenses.” Durden v. State, 901 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Negron Gil De Rubio v. State, 987 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
In reviewing the record in this case, it is impossible to determine whether or not there was a single agreement to commit more than one crime or two separate agreements to commit different crimes. The lower court did not attach any documents refuting Beard’s claim of double jeopardy. It would appear in reviewing the record that it was one agreement to commit more than one criminal act.
The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court to provide attachments from the record that conclusively refute Beard’s claim that the convictions for two counts of conspiracy violate the principles of double jeopardy or to vacate the conviction for the lesser conspiracy offense.
REVERSED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
GRIFFIN, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maranda Joy Martin v. State, 141 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…tences stemming from a home invasion and murder. Upon concession by the State, we find that her dual convictions for conspiracy based on a single agreement to commit criminal acts violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Beard v. State, 69 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate one of the conspiracy convictions. We affirm on all other issues. However, we write to address appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying her…
Authorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Jose N. Negron GIL DE Rubio v. State, 987 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Durden v. State, 901 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)