RICHARD EDWARD COX, 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.
Richard Edward Cox challenges his convictions and sentences on remand following reversal of his initial convictions. The court reverses the life sentence for breaking and entering (previously five years) as violating the prohibition on increased punishment following successful appeal, and reverses the larceny of an automobile conviction due to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense.
The court reverses the life sentence for breaking and entering as improper under North Carolina v. Pearce, vacating it and remanding for imposition of no more than five years. The court reverses the larceny of an automobile conviction and sentence, requiring a new trial, because the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of unauthorized use of an automobile. The assault conviction related to grand larceny is affirmed as unchallenged on appeal.
[1] A defendant cannot receive a harsher sentence on retrial after a conviction has been reversed on appeal unless the record affirmatively shows reasons for the increased se…
[2] Unauthorized use of an automobile is a lesser included offense of larceny of an automobile.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We reverse as to the imposition of a life sentence for conviction on the same charge which had previously resulted in a sentence of five years.”
Establishes the core holding that the life sentence violates North Carolina v. Pearce's prohibition on increased punishment following successful appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCox was initially convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny (5 years), robbery (25 years), and unauthorized use of a moto…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Richard Edward Cox, was previously convicted of (1) breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony to-wit: grand larceny for which he was sentenced to five years; (2) robbery for which he was sentenced to 25 years; and (3) unauthorized use of a motor vehicle for which he was sentenced to time served. On appeal his convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. See Cox v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 762.
On retrial he was convicted on the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny and sentenced to life imprisonment. On the charge of robbery he was convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony: to wit grand larceny and sentenced to two years and credit for time served, and on the charge of larceny of an auto he was convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony, .to wit: larceny of an auto and sentenced to one year and credit for time served. A Motion to Mitigate and Correct the Sentence was filed by the defendant and denied by the trial court. Defendant has appealed.
We reverse as to the imposition of a life sentence for conviction on the same charge which had previously resulted in a sentence of five years. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); and Standifer v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So.2d 205. This record contains no showing of any reasons for the imposition of a life sentence after an appeal by Cox which resulted in a reversal of the conviction and sentence for five years on the same charge.
The state concedes that the trial court erred in its refusal to instruct the jury that the unauthorized use of an automobile is a lesser included offense of larceny of an automobile and that this instruction should have been given. See Brown v. State, Fla. 1968, 206 So.2d 377; Wright v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 229; Stewart v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 358; § 919.16, Fla.Stat, F.S.A.; and Rule 1.510, CrPR, 33 F.S.A. We, therefore, must reverse the judgment of conviction and sentence of the defendant for the crime of assault with intent to commit a felony, larceny of an automobile.
Points Two and Three of defendant’s brief and argument are also directed to error claimed as a result of the entry of the judgment and sentence on the charge of larceny of an automobile. We have reversed the judgment and sentence on this charge and see no need to discuss the other points raised by appellant.
The judgment and sentence of the defendant on the charge of larceny of an automobile is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on this charge.
The judgment of conviction on the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, grand larceny, is affirmed but the life sentence imposed thereon is vacated and set aside and the case is remanded with instructions to the trial court for the imposition of a sentence for not more than five years.
The judgment and sentence of assault with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny, has not been challenged by any points raised in this appeal and is affirmed.
The final judgment is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case is remanded for further action consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett v. State, 335 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…ndly, the trial court reversibly erred in denying defendant’s requested jury instruction on temporary unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Temporary unauthorized use is a necessarily lesser included offense of larceny of an automobile, Cox v. State, 243 So. 2d 611 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1971); Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (2nd D.C.A. Fla.1968). Being a necessary included lesser offense, Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968), the trial court was required to give instructions thereon, State v. Terry, Fla., 336 S…
-
Wright v. State, 421 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Garrett v. State, 335 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Cox v. State, 243 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1980); § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1979); § 812.041, Fla.Stat. (1979).…
-
Scott v. State, 305 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…d showing of some sufficient reason therefor occurring prior to that time, as outlined in North Carolina v. Pearce, 375 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656). See also, Standifer v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 205; Cox v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 611; Roberson v. State, Fla.1971, 258 So. 2d 257; Kilpatrick v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 472. Here the court made no findings or recitation of matters such as would justify the greater sentences on the “new trial”. While it may be argued that th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- COX v. State, 219 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Stewart v. State, 187 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Standifer, 241 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)