JIMMY HALL, 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.
Jimmy Hall was convicted by jury of two counts of grand larceny and sentenced to consecutive five-year terms. He appealed on six grounds, all of which the court rejected, affirming his conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. The court held that Rule 3.140(k)(5) permits disjunctive or alternative allegations for offenses committed by multiple acts or means; that alleging money in excess of $100 is sufficiently particular; that the record does not support claims of juror bias or tainted identification; that jury instructions on lesser included offenses are proper; and that consecutive sentences for separate robberies of different people are lawful.
[1] An information is not duplicitous when it alleges in the disjunctive or alternative multiple acts, means, intents, or results for an offense that may be committed in such…
[2] An information alleging the theft of "a sum in excess of ONE HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS good and lawful money of the United States of America" is sufficiently particular.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“For an offense which may be committed by the doing of one or more of several acts, or by one or more of several means, or with one or more of several intents or results, it is permissible to allege in the disjunctive or alternative such two or more acts, means, intents or results.”
Court's basis for rejecting the challenge that the counts were duplicitous under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.140(k)(5)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was found guilty by jury of two counts of grand larceny. He was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms in the state penitentiary. The charges i…
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 Jury Instructions On Lesser Included Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
A jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of grand larceny. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to consecutive five year terms in the state penitentiary. On this appeal, he presents six points for reversal. They are as follows: (1) the first and fourth counts of the information were fatally defective and subject to appellant’s *522motion to dismiss as duplicitous; (2) the first count of the information was fatally defective as vague and indefinite; (3) the court erred in failing to exclude for cause two of the jurors; (4) the identification testimony was tainted by pretrial procedures and was subject to appellant’s motion to strike; (5) the court erred in instructing the jury on lesser included offenses ; (6) the sentence was illegal because the first and fourth counts of the information constituted separate facets of one transaction.
The first point does not present reversible error because of Rule 3.140(k) (5), R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A., which provides as follows:
“ . . . For an offense which may be committed by the doing of one or more of several acts, or by one or more of several means, or with one or more of several intents or results, it is permissible to allege in the disjunctive or alternative such two or more acts, means, intents or results.”
See also State v. Rand, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 31.
The second point urges that the State was required to allege a more particular description of the money taken than “a sum in excess of ONE HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS good and lawful money of the United States of America.” Appellant’s argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Florida. See Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43, 109 So. 303 (1926).
Appellant’s third and fourth points simply are not supported by the record. The fifth point has been decided adversely to appellant’s position by this court. See Morrison v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 3rd D.C.A., 259 So.2d 502.
The sixth point urges that because appellant robbed several people consecutively only one robbery was committed. This position is obviously untenable as it neglects the essential nature of the actual criminal acts committed by the appellant. See Hamilton v. State, Fla.1937, 129 Fla.219, 176 So. 89 (1937); Williams v. Mayo, 126 Fla.871, 172 So. 86 (1937).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 265 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 261 So. 2d 521. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Watson v. State, 322 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…Affirmed on the authority of Estevez v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So. 2d 692. See also Hall v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 521; Pettigrew v. State, Fla.App.1974, 295 So. 2d 672; State v. Kirkland, Fla.1975, 322 So. 2d 480. Compare Calvo v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 313 So. 2d 39.…
-
Cooper v. State, 429 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hail v. State, 261 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(k)(5).…
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
- Augusta Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1937)
- Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1926)
- Williams v. The Honorable Nathan Mayo, 126 Fla. 871 (Fla. 1937)
- Morrison v. State, 259 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- State v. Rand, 231 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)