DAVID FIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
David Figgs (defendant) timely appeals his sentences for carjacking with a firearm1, aggravated assault2, and armed robbery.3 He contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in adjudicating him guilty and sentencing him on both the armed robbery and the carjacking with a firearm charges because the only item he took from the victim was the key to the car that he carjacked. The State properly concedes that the defendant’s dual convictions violate double jeopardy. See Hanfield v. State, 40 So.3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Price v. State, 816 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s conviction for carjacking with a firearm and direct the trial court to vacate that conviction and sentence. We affirm the defendant’s other convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chappell v. State, 200 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…to demonstrate that the aggregate value of the iPad and laptop was at least $300. We disagree and hold that the evidence was insufficient to establish the stolen value of the iPad and laptop computer at the time of the theft. See id.; C.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 680, 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Accordingly, we reverse Chappell’s judgment and sentence for the third-degree grand theft regarding the laptop computer and iPad and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment and' sentence on this coun…
-
Martin v. State, 229 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…d grand theft. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge because the State failed to prove that the value of the stolen items was over $300. We agree. See C.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that evidence was insufficient to establish value of stolen cellular telephone at $100 or more, and thus was insufficient to support conviction for first-degree petit theft, notwithstanding victim’s testimony tha…
Authorities Cited
- Darius Donard Price v. State, 816 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Hanfield v. State, 40 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)