CLARENCE L. MACKEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1969-06-03
No. 68-1070
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
223 So. 2d 380 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1969) Caution
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court reversed a conviction for accessory after the fact to robbery, agreeing with the State that the conviction was improper based on cited precedent. The reversal was without prejudice to the State to file a new information.


Holding

The court held that the conviction was improper and should be reversed. The court also held that the reversal should be without prejudice to the State to file a new information.


Key Quotes

“The State concedes with commendable candor1 that the conviction should be reversed upon the following authorities: Brown v. State, Fla. 1968, 206 So. 2d 377; Douglas v. State, Fla. App.1968, 214 So. 2d 653, but submits that the reversal of the conviction should be without prejudice to file a new information charging the appellant as an accessory.”

This quote establishes the State's concession and the basis for the reversal, as well as the proposed disposition regarding refiling charges.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was charged with robbery but convicted as an accessory after the fact. The State conceded that the conviction was erroneous and should b…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record upon the charge of robbery. He was convicted as an accessory after the fact. The State concedes with commendable candor1 that the conviction should be reversed upon the following authorities: Brown v. State, Fla. 1968, 206 So.2d 377; Douglas v. State, Fla. App.1968, 214 So.2d 653, but submits that the reversal of the conviction should be without prejudice to file a new information charging the appellant as an accessory. We concur and reverse the conviction and sentence here under review, with directions to discharge the appellant, which reversal is without prejudice to the State to proceed with further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. See: Newkirk v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 435 (opinion filed May 6, 1969).

Reversed and remanded with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • Dores R. Fishman v. Fishman, 245 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
    …w an abuse of discretion in that matter was not met. French v. French, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 584, 585; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 468, 469; Ortiz v. Ortiz, Fla. App.1968, 211 So. 2d 243; and Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 380. See generally § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. [*259] Accordingly, the portion of the decree establishing the lump sum alimony in the amount of $48,000.00 is affirmed. Affirmed. ON REHEARING Appellant has petitioned for a rehearing seeking to have the…
  • Meltzer v. Meltzer, 400 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
    …r, 315 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1975); Snider v. Snider, 375 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), appeal dismissed, 385 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1980); Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1970); Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, 223 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 229 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1969). By cross-appeal, Ms. Meltzer claims error in the fact that the trial judge awarded only $25,000 to compensate for additional child support before the date of the order under review, July…
  • Rankin v. Rankin, 275 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
    …nsistent herewith. Reversed. MANN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur. . See, Young v. Young (Fla.1953), 65 So. 2d 28; and Duss v. Duss, 92 Fla. 1081, 111 So. 382 (1927). . See Rule 3.8(b) F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.; and Young v. Young, id. . (Fla.App.1969), 223 So. 2d 380, 382.…

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw