HAROLD BERNARD ELLIS, 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.
The court held that sentencing for two counts of accessory after the fact was proper, even if committed during the same criminal episode, and that the statute in effect at the time of the offense controls sentencing.
Appellant was sentenced to seven years on each of two counts of accessory after the fact for concealing two different guns used in assaults on two dif…
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 Accessory After The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant first contends that his sentence is illegal in that he was sentenced twice for the same criminal act or episode. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment on each of two counts of an information. Count 1 charged him with accessory after the fact as to the assault on Officer Alexander Joe on October 18, 1971; Count 2 charged him with accessory after the fact as to assault on Officer George Kist-ner on the same date.
The evidence shows that Officer Kistner was shot with a .22 caliber gun and Officer Joe was shot with a 30-30 rifle. The evidence also shows that appellant concealed both guns. The appellant hid two separate guns used in assaults against two different individuals. The offenses were therefore two separate offenses, even though the assaults were committed during the same criminal episode. Harris v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 286 So. 2d 32; Trousdale v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 287 So. 2d 721.
Appellant next contends that he should have been sentenced to only five years, since this was the maximum punishment provided by F.S. § 776.03 F.S.A. at the time he was sentenced. The courts of Florida have long held that the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, rather than at the time of sentencing, is the controlling statute. Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57 (1900); Turner v. State, 1924, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334; Ex parte Browne, 1927, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518; Bazarte v. State, Fla.App.2d 1959, 114 So. 2d 500; Sing v. State, Fla. App.1st 1959, 115 So. 2d 773; Wood v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 193; Collins v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 271 So. 2d 156.
Affirmed.
McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Eldridge Pizarro, 383 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…McShay v. State, 321 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Since the Youthful Offender Act alters the prescribed punishments for those persons meeting its requirements, it cannot apply to offenses committed prior to its effective date. See Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Allen v. State, 383 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA Case No. 78-2299/T4-266, opinion filed April 16, 1980). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the Act is discretionary or mandatory under the pa…
-
Allen v. State, 383 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…imprisonment for the commission of a second degree felony at the time of appellant’s conviction was fifteen years. It is clear that the statute in effect at the time an offense is committed controls the maximum penalty at sentencing. Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). It is also clear that if the Legislature, in enacting the Youthful Offender Act had purported to make its maximum punishment provisions apply retroactively to crimes committed pri- or to its effective date, it would have been unc…
-
Cooper v. Louie L. Wainwright, 308 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…eged offense controls. Raines v. State, Fla. 1900, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57; Turner v. State, Fla.1924, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334; Wood v. Cochran, Fla. 1960, 118 So. 2d 193; Collins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 271 So. 2d 156; Ellis v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 298 So. 2d 527; Rozinski v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 298 So. 2d 546. The second point challenges the legality of the five year consecutive sentence under Count II for aggravated assault. We agree with appellant on this point. Count I, of the Information, charges tha…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1900)
- Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1924)
- Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1927)
- Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Sing v. State, 115 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Collins v. State, 271 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Trousdale v. State, 287 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Bazarte v. State, 114 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Wood v. Cochran, 118 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1960)