STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
OTIS LEE HARDRICK, RESPONDENT
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 imposing two separate concurrent sentences for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny, when they are facets of the same transaction, is improper.
Respondent was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. The trial court withheld adjudication and sentenci…
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 Double Jeopardy (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Hardrick v. State, reported at 293 So. 2d 135 (Fla.App.2nd, 1974), which directly conflicts with Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138 (Fla.App.3d, 1974), decision approved by this Court 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Respondent was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentences were withheld by the trial court, and respondent was charged with violating his probation, pled guilty, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to 15 years for breaking and entering and to a concurrent term of 5 years for grand larceny.
The District Court affirmed the order of the trial court in all respects with the exception of the imposition of two separate concurrent sentences for the crimes of breaking and entering and grand larceny. Relying on its previous decision of Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (Fla.App. 1973), the District Court determined that sentence could be imposed only for the highest offense since the offenses were facets of the same transaction.
The sole point before us for review is the propriety of the imposition of the two concurrent sentences by the trial court. In view of our recent decision in Estevez v. State, supra, this cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter a judgment not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., McCAIN and OVER-TON, JJ., and CREWS, LEE and Mc-CRARY, Circuit Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…, suggests a "no contact” condition should prohibit "intentional, unsupervised” contact. . The current version of the statute is identical. . Hardrick v. State, 293 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), was reversed on other grounds by State v. Hardrick, 313 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1975). . By way of example, and not inclusive: Defendant’s probation officer testified that he instructed her on at least three different occasions that she was not permitted to have unsupervised contact with a child under the age of sixteen;…
-
Page v. State, 376 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…y proceedings after the order of probation. .” (Emphasis supplied). Brown v. State, 305 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Stuart v. State, 353 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hardrick v. State, 293 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 313 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1975). The state further contends that this issue was not presented to the trial court and must be presented in a motion to vacate judgment and sentence rather than by way of an appeal. We reject these arguments. [*904] We note initially that a…
Authorities Cited
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)
- Ellis Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Hardrick v. State, 293 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)