FRANK COSTANTINO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to elect between counts one and two, nor in limiting peremptory challenges.
Appellant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, attempted grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools. He wa…
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 Attempted Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Frank Costantino, was charged in a three-count information with:
(1) Breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit a felony therein, to wit: Grand Larceny
(2) Attempted grand larceny
(3) Possession of burglary tools
Following a jury trial, Costantino was adjudged guilty on all three counts of the information and sentenced. He now appeals.
On appeal, he claims reversible error was committed when the trial court denied his motion to require the State to elect between counts one and two on the grounds that they charged him with offenses which are one and the same. We find no reversible error as the two charges amount to separate crimes requiring different evidence and proof for conviction. See Taylor v. State, 138 Fla. 762, 190 So. 262 (1939); Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324, 166 So. 832 (1936); Evans v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 323.
The appellant has also argued that under § 913.08(2) Florida Statutes, F.S.A., he should have been allowed six peremptory challenges on voir dire for each offense charged in the information, i. e. a total of eighteen peremptory challenges for the three offenses, and that it was reversible error for the trial judge to limit him to but six. We disagree. The three offenses charged in the information arose from similar and connected circumstances and the evidence was of a similar and connected *648nature. Consequently, this case is controlled by Blackwelder v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 834, and not by Meade v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 613, 59 A.L.R.2d 835.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 222 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1969)…ere identical, the defendant was not entitled, upon consolidation of cases, to accumulate the number of peremptory challenges that would have been allowable if the cases had been tried separately. We have also reviewed Costantino v. State, Fla.App., 203 So. 2d 647, cases from other jurisdictions, texts involving the same point of law, and must conclude that inasmuch as the object or purpose of consolidation of cases is to save time and expense to persons accused and time to the court and expense to the public…
-
Livingston v. State, 512 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ere identical, the defendant was not entitled, upon consolidation of cases, to accumulate the number of peremptory challenges that would have been allowable if the cases had been tried separately. We have also reviewed Costantino v. State, Fla.App., 203 So. 2d 647, cases from other jurisdictions, texts involving the same point of law, and must conclude that inasmuch as the object or purpose of consolidation of cases is to save time and expense to persons accused and time to the court and expense to the public…
Authorities Cited
- Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1936)
- Meade v. State, 85 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1956)
- Aldine Taylor v. State, 138 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1939)
- Evans v. State, 197 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Blackwelder v. State, 100 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)