EDDIE AMERSON, JR., 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.
Eddie Amerson was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (knife), assault with intent to commit rape, and false imprisonment arising from a single incident. He appealed on the ground that multiple sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal transaction violated the rule against cumulative sentences for a single criminal episode, but the court affirmed the multiple sentences, finding the crimes constituted separate criminal transactions.
The court held that the three charges constituted three separate criminal transactions, not single facets of the same transaction, and therefore multiple sentences were properly imposed. The assault at the car location was distinct and separate from the assault with intent to commit rape in the woods.
[1] Multiple sentences may be imposed for crimes arising from the same criminal transaction if the charges constitute separate criminal transactions.
[2] Assault with a deadly weapon and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit rape, when committed sequentially and involving distinct acts, constitute separate cri…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the three charges were three separate criminal transactions for which appellant can properly be sentenced”
The court's holding that multiple sentences were proper because the crimes constituted separate transactions, not single facets of one transaction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim was approached by appellant as she locked her car. Appellant forced her into his car at knifepoint (assault with deadly weapon, Count I). H…
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 A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged by an information, Count I, assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife; Count II, assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife, with the intent to commit rape; and Count VI, false imprisonment. Following a trial by jury, appellant was convicted of the above three charges. He was sentenced to imprisonment on Count VI for 15 years, Count II earned 5 years consecutive to the 15 year sentence on Count VI, and Count II earned a 5 year sentence to run concurrent with the 5 year term he got for Count I.
The sole question raised on this appeal is the propriety of imposing multiple sentences for these multiple crimes because they were committed during the same criminal transaction. As put by appellant these crimes were “single facets” of the same criminal transaction and therefore under the rule of Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 436, and Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973). We cannot quarrel with the rules of law stated in Simmons and Cone, but the facts of this case are materially different from those in the cited cases, and from our analysis the three charges were three separate criminal transactions for which appellant can properly be sentenced.
The victim of appellant’s acts arrived at work one evening and as she was locking her car, appellant approached her and when she wouldn’t let him in her car, appellant forced her into his car at knife point. That conduct constitutes assault with a deadly weapon as charged in Count I. The law prohibits people from assaulting one another with a knife and makes such conduct punishable by imprisonment.
Next, appellant forced the victim to lie down in the car seat and drove her to the woods where he committed an assault upon her with intent to rape her and during that episode he held a knife in his hand so as to force her to submit to his lust which culminated in appellant forcibly placing his penis in her mouth. That conduct was different than and in addition to the assault charged in Count I and is punishable as a separate offense.
There is no legal authority submitted by appellant to challenge the validity of the sentence imposed for Count VI, so that issue is not before us. Rather the arguments of appellant are confined to the contention that the conduct charged in Counts I and II are but facets of a single transaction. We do not agree and affirm. The acts are separate and distinct, and are punishable separately. Estevez v. State (Fla.App.1974), 290 So. 2d 138.
Affirmed.
BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cumbie v. State, 327 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ore us, assault with the intent to commit first degree murder and assault with the intent to commit rape are not facets of the same criminal transaction, but are separate and distinct acts, therefore, are punishable separately. See Amerson v. State, 303 So. 2d 377 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974). The victim was forcibly required to undress and to submit to defendant’s efforts to have intercourse with her. When unsuccessful in consummating the act, defendant made the victim dress, and after walking some distance from the…
-
Turner v. State, 310 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. (See Amerson v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 303 So. 2d 377). RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.…
-
Lowery v. State, 311 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. (See Amerson v. State, Fla. App.1st 1974, 303 So. 2d 377) RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1942)
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)