JOSE MACIAS, 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.
Jose Macias was convicted by jury of lewd or lascivious battery, lewd or lascivious molestation, kidnapping, and burglary with assault or battery. The trial court held the molestation conviction in abeyance while sentencing him on the other counts. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed the molestation conviction as violating double jeopardy because it arose from the same conduct as the battery conviction.
The court's evidentiary rulings were proper and affirmed. However, holding the lewd or lascivious molestation conviction in abeyance violates double jeopardy because Appellant cannot be convicted of both lewd or lascivious battery and lewd or lascivious molestation arising out of the same conduct. The molestation conviction must be vacated.
[1] A court violates double jeopardy by holding a conviction in abeyance when the conviction arises from the same conduct as another conviction for which the defendant is sen…
[2] A defendant cannot be convicted of both lewd or lascivious battery and lewd or lascivious molestation arising out of the same conduct.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 court's decision to hold the lewd or lascivious molestation count in abeyance violated double jeopardy as Appellant could not be convicted of both lewd or lascivious battery and lewd or lascivious molestation arising out of the same conduct”
Establishes the core holding that dual convictions for these offenses from the same conduct violates 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 intelligenceA jury found Appellant Jose Macias guilty of one count of lewd or lascivious battery, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, one count of kidnap…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling With An Assault Or Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
A jury found Appellant, Jose Macias, guilty of one count of lewd or lascivious battery, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, one count of kidnapping, and one count of a, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery. The court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him on all counts except for the lewd or lascivious molestation count, which it “held in abeyance.” On appeal, Appellant takes issue with several of the court’s evidentiary rulings at trial. He also argues that the court’s decision to hold his lewd or lascivious molestation conviction in abeyance constitutes a violation of double jeopardy.
We find no error in any of the court’s underlying evidentiary rulings and thus affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences for lewd or lascivious battery, kidnapping, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery without further comment. However, we agree with Appellant that the court’s decision to hold the lewd or lascivious molestation count in abeyance violated double jeopardy as Appellant could not be convicted of both lewd' or lascivious battery and lewd or lascivious molestation arising out of the same conduct. Graves v. State, 96 So.3d 1033, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The State properly concedes error on this issue. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the verdict of *688guilt'as to lewd or lascivious molestation count. See Burford v. State, 8 So.3d 478, 480-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (remanding for vacation of conviction for offense which was held “in abeyance” because the conviction violated double jeopardy).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.,,
GROSg and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur.