LARRY WILLIAMS, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief but reversed and remanded the double jeopardy claim regarding multiple burglary convictions for insufficient factual development.
Multiple convictions for burglary of a structure may violate double jeopardy when the defendant entered the same structure, but multiple convictions are permitted when separate structures or distinct business entities are involved, requiring remand for factual determination.
[1] Multiple convictions for burglary of a structure violate double jeopardy when the defendant entered the same structure, but are permitted when separate structures or dist…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the prohibition against double jeopardy was violated when the defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary of a structure for entering a trailer and for entering the curtilage of surrounding trailers”
Court cited Henry v. State to illustrate when double jeopardy violation occurs in burglary cases
Larry Williams was convicted of burglary of a structure and burglary of a structure with assault, and he sought post-conviction relief challenging the…
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 Multiple Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Larry Williams, challenges the trial court’s denial of his motions for *529post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motions with the exception of Appellant’s claim that his convictions for burglary of a structure and for burglary of a structure with an assault violate double jeopardy. This Court has held that double jeopardy was violated when the defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary of the same structure. See Henry v. State, 707 So.2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the prohibition against double jeopardy was violated when the defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary of a structure for entering a trailer and for entering the curtilage of surrounding trailers). However, under some circumstances multiple convictions of burglary of a structure may be permitted. See Smith v. State, 632 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (affirming the defendant’s convictions for eighteen counts of burglary of a structure for entering a mall and entering seventeen separate business entities under the mail’s single roof). Because the trial court did not fully explain its reasoning for denying Appellant’s double jeopardy claim, and because there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine the facts underlying the charges, we cannot determine whether a double jeopardy violation has occurred. We, therefore, reverse the denial of this claim and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellant is entitled to relief on this claim.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sterling Henry v. State, 707 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Anderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)