MICHAEL HILLS, 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 denial of a Batson challenge due to lack of preservation but reversed one of two convictions for resisting an officer with violence as a double jeopardy violation, vacating that conviction without remanding for resentencing.
One conviction for resisting an officer with violence must be vacated as a double jeopardy violation when two such convictions arise from a single episode, but the trial court's peremptory challenge ruling is affirmed for lack of preservation.
[1] Two convictions for resisting an officer with violence arising from a single episode constitute double jeopardy and one conviction must be vacated.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of two counts of resisting an officer with violence arising from a single episode and challenged both the state's peremptory c…
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 Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant claims that (1) the trial court erred by allowing the state to exercise a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror without determining whether the state’s race-neutral reason was genuine; and (2) his convictions for two counts of resisting an officer with violence arising from a single episode constitute fundamental error because they violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm as to first claim due to a lack of preservation. Mobley v. State, 100 So.3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). However, the state correctly concedes error as to the second claim. Wallace v. State, 724 So.2d 1176 (Fla.1998); Johnson v. State, 747 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jones v. State, 711 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse one of the convictions for resisting an officer with violence and remand with directions that the trial court vacate that conviction. Johnson, 747 So.2d at 1028; Jones, 711 So.2d at 634. Although this will result in a slight reduction in points on appellant’s scoresheet, our review of the record convinces us that the trial court would impose the same sentence for the remaining conviction on remand. Therefore, there is no need to remand for resentencing. Id.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions.
RAY, SWANSON, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Castro v. State, 389 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Jones v. State, 711 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Johnson v. State, 747 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Mobley v. State, 100 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)