LEROY WILLIAMS, 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.
Affirmed conviction for robbery and firearm possession, but reversed and remanded to eliminate the consecutive sentence for firearm possession as a duplicative offense under Cone v. State.
When armed robbery and possession of a firearm during commission of that robbery arise from the same criminal act, only one sentence may be imposed.
[1] Consecutive sentences for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during commission of that robbery violate double jeopardy principles when both offenses arise from the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of robbery and possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, with consecutive sentences imposed on each count.…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm While Engaged In A Criminal Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
Appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction of one count of robbery and one count of possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and a subsequent sentence on each count with the sentences to run consecutively.
After carefully reviewing the arguments of counsel and the record on appeal, we find the points posed by appellant to be without merit.
Sua sponte, we do find fundamental error in the sentences imposed by the trial court. The Supreme Court of Florida, in reviewing a similar factual situation in Cone v. State,1 quashed this Court’s per curiam affirmance of a judgment of the instant trial court imposing concurrent sentences: 1) for the offense of armed robbery, and 2) for the offense of displaying or using a firearm during the commission of the robbery.2 The Supreme Court held in Cone that the two crimes charged were a part of the same criminal act and directed the trial court to eliminate the sentence as to possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense.
On the authority of Cone, supra, the cause is remanded with directions that the sentence below be amended by eliminating therefrom the part sentencing defendant to “ . . . twenty (20) as to Count Two [possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense] said sentences to run consecutively.” Otherwise, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.
JOHNSON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur. . Cone v. State, Fla., 285 So. 2d 12, Opinion filed March 7, 1973.
. The identical offenses in the case at bar.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Still v. State, 296 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…the robbery charge and the use of a firearm charge were but facets or phases of the same criminal action and that only one sentence should have been imposed for the robbery conviction. See Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 287 So. 2d 382 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973); and Norris, v. State, 288 So. 2d 553 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974). We fully agree with the State’s contention that the third offense charged, assault with intent to commit a felony, was a different and separate criminal act for which a…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)