RINGO

v.

REES, SUPERINTENDENT, KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Grubbs v. State, 769 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
  …See McAllister v. State, 718 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Although these crimes arose from one single factual episode, each contains an element of proof not required in the other. See Tarpley v. Dugger, 841 F. 2d 359 (11th Cir.1988), cert. den., 488 U.S. 837, 109 S.Ct. 101, 102 L.Ed.2d 76 (convictions for burglary, grand theft and criminal mischief arising out of the same episode do not violate the double jeopardy clause). No error appears here. Appellant argues that the trial court should have granted…
• United States v. Donaldson, 978 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1992)
  …were within a few blocks of each other. The handwriting evidence for two of the counts overlapped, and the five eye-witnesses all described a similar robber. Further, we held in United States v. Archer, 843 F. 2d 1019, 1021 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 837, 109 S.Ct. 100, 102 L.Ed.2d 76 (1988), that where the crimes are the same or of similar character and the elements to be proved in each count are the same, these similarities permit the joinder of the offenses. Here, the elements to be proved for ea…
• United States v. Morgan, 942 F.2d 243 (4th Cir. 1991)
  …3)(D)). This latter procedure is adequate to enable this court to determine the resolution and treatment by the district court of the alleged factual inaccuracy. See United States v. Perrera, 842 F. 2d 73, 76 (4th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 837, 109 S.Ct. 102, 102 L.Ed.2d 77 (1988). When the district court elects to take this approach in meeting its responsibilities under Rule 32, it must make clear on the record that it has made an independent finding and that its finding coincides with…