HAROLD EDWIN EASTON, 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.
Harold Easton appealed his conviction on six counts of violating Florida's Securities Law, arguing both the conviction and six consecutive sentences were erroneous. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that multiple counts arising from the same transaction may result in multiple convictions but can support only one sentence.
While multiple convictions may be proper when a single transaction violates more than one statute, only one sentence may be imposed for a single transaction, regardless of how many counts or statutes are violated. Therefore, the convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
[1] A single transaction may violate two statutes and constitute two separate offenses, but only one sentence may be imposed for that transaction.
[2] Where each count in an information arises from the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed.
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“In Florida, where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed”
Establishes the core holding that a single transaction cannot support multiple sentences even if it violates multiple statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn three dates (November 20, 1968, January 29, 1969, and February 8, 1969), Easton allegedly sold unregistered securities and engaged in business as a…
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 Unregistered Securities cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a conviction on each count of a six-count information charging violations of the Florida Securities Law, Ch. 517, F.S.A. Counts one, three and five alleged the unlawful sale by appellant of unregistered securities on January 29, 1969, February 8, 1969 and November 20, 1968, respectively. Counts two, four and six charged that appellant did unlawfully “engage in business as a dealer,” without being registered as such dealer, on each of the above dates. He was sentenced to two years on each of the six counts, to run consecutively.
Appellant urges reversible error in both the conviction and the sentencing, but upon examination of the arguments with respect to the convictions we find them to be without merit. Reversible error does appear, however, in the imposition of the six sentences.
It is patent from the informations and the evidence at trial that each charge of unlawful sale was coupled with a companion charge of unlawfully engaging in business. It is also apparent that each such pair of charges arose from the one transaction. Put another way, the only evidence of “engaging in business” without registration, on any given date charged, was the charged unlawful sale of securities on that date. Thus, each of counts one and *295two constitute a facet of one transaction; and the identical pairing may be made of counts three and four and of five and six, making three transactions in all.
Now, while each count charges a different “offense,” it is well settled that “[i]n Florida, where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed * * 1 That is to say, a single transaction may violate two statutes and thus constitute two separate offenses; but, while convictions may he had on each, only one sentence is appropriate. In this case, therefore, it was error to impose more than one sentence for the same transaction on each of the three specified dates.
Accordingly, the judgments and convictions are affirmed, hut the sentences are vacated and the cause is remanded with directions that the appellant be presented to the trial court and properly sentenced in accord herewith.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)…and the only sentence that should have been imposed was for the highest offense, i. e., armed robbery. Petitioners contend the decision of the District Court conflicts with Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 436, and Easton v. State, DCA2d, 250 So. 2d 294, which hold that “where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed, and for the higher offense.” Inspection of the record proper reveals the information filed…
-
Ellis Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…256 So. 2d 537; Martin v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1971, 251 So. 2d 283; Keenan v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 253 So. 2d 273; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 253 So. 2d 459; Yost v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 243 So. 2d 469; Easton v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 250 So. 2d 294; Wyche v. State, Fla.App.2d 1965, 178 So. 2d 875; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.3d 1963, 156 So. 2d 677; Bullard v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1963, 151 So. 2d 343; State v. Schaag, Fla.App. 1st 1959, 115 So. 2d 783; Trihue v. State, Fla.App.2d 1958, 106 So. 2d…
-
Davis v. State, 277 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…inspection thereof confirmed the conclusion we drew from the language of the information that the two crimes charged were facets of the same criminal act. “On authority of Simmons v. State [151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 436] and Easton v. State [Fla.App., 250 So. 2d 294], supra, the cause is remanded with directions that the sentence below be amended by eliminating therefrom the part sentencing defendants to ‘twenty years as to possession of firearm while engaged in a criminal offense.’ ” Cone indicates that a cri…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Williams v. State, 69 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1953)