JULIAN CAPLAN, 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.
Julian Caplan was convicted of multiple counts of obscenity violations involving the exhibition of obscene films. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but vacated one advertising conviction as duplicitous, and remanded another case for an evidentiary hearing on speedy trial rights.
The statute was not unconstitutionally vague; separate convictions on consecutive days were proper under 847.011(4); the advertising convictions were improper as duplicitous because the advertisement was a single act of procurement; and Case 71-848 must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on speedy trial rights.
[1] Separate convictions for offenses committed on consecutive days are proper when a statute defines each act, thing, or transaction forbidden as a separate offense.
[2] A single act of procuring a newspaper advertisement constitutes one offense, even if the advertisement appears on multiple days within a single billing period.
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“Every act, thing, or transaction forbidden by this section shall constitute a separate offense”
Establishes that separate convictions for violations on consecutive days were proper under the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaplan was charged with possessing, showing, and advertising obscene films and hiring others to assist in showing obscene films in violation of Florid…
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 Separate Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant, Julian Caplan, was charged by-information with having in his possession with intent to show an obscene film, showing an obscene film, advertising an obscene film and hiring another to assist in showing an obscene film in violation of Florida Statutes, Section 847.011(1) (a), (1969), (Case No. 71-846). All counts arose from the showing of the film “Little Sisters” on October 8, 1970. A second information charged the same four offenses occurring, on October 7, 1970 (Case No. 71-847). On April 23, 1971, appellant was charged with hiring or permitting another person to show the obscene film, “Continuing Adventures of Johnny Gonad” (Case No. 71-848). After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of all eight counts in Case No. 71-846 and Case No. 71-847. In a non-jury trial, on November IS, 1971, appellant was found guilty in Case No. 71-848.
Appellant first contends that at the time of his alleged violations on October 7 and 8, 1970, Chapter 847, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutionally vague. This contention is without merit. See State v. Papp, Fla.1974, 298 So. 2d 374. Likewise, appellant’s contention that comments made by the prosecution in its closing argument to the jury had the effect of commenting on his failure to testify is without merit.
Appellant argues that it was improper to convict him of identical offenses committed on consecutive days since his offense was a single, continuous violation of Chapter 847, supra. We disagree. Section 847.011(4), supra, provides in pertinent part:
Every act, thing, or transaction forbidden by this section shall constitute a separate offense ....
Therefore, separate convictions under the statute for crimes committed on consecutive days were proper. There is no.indication in the record that sentences have been imposed. Thus the question of dual punishment for different facets of the same crime is not presented here. However, we are certain that the trial court is fully aware of Yost v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1971, 243 So. 2d 469, and will impose sentences in accordance with that decision. See also Easton v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 250 So. 2d 294.
However, the two convictions for advertising the same film are improper. The record indicates that appellant purchased and paid for a weekly advertisement which appeared in the “St. Peters-burg Times.” Both dates in question were included within the particular billing period. Thus, while there was a continuing newspaper advertisement appearing on both October 7 and 8, appellant’s offense consisted of a single act of procuring the advertisement. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of conviction of .advertising an obscene film in Case No. 71-846.
Appellant also alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge, pursuant to RCrP 3.191, of Case No. 71-848. The record indicates that appellant went to trial after the 90-day misdemeanor time limit had already run. The record contains only appellant’s motion to discharge and a minute book entry indicating that argument was heard on the motion and the motion denied.
In view of the delay and the silent record, Case No. 71-848 is hereby remanded with directions for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant was denied his right to a speedy trial under RCrP 3.191. Should the court decide that appellant’s speedy trial rights were violated, it should vacate the judgment and discharge appellant. A copy of the order should be sent to this court and the state would have a right to file a new appeal from that order. If the trial judge should determine that appellant’s speedy trial rights were not violated, he should enter an order setting forth his findings in support of this conclusion. This order, together with the record of the hearing, should then be transmitted to this court for review of its legal sufficiency.
Case No. 71-847 is affirmed. Case No. 71-846 is affirmed as modified. Case No. 71-848 is remanded with directions.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caplan v. State, 336 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 1976)…as County of violating Section 847.-011(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), which proscribes, inter alia, possession with intent to show, advertising, hiring another to assist in showing, and showing an obscene film. The Second District Court of Appeal, 317 So. 2d 855 affirmed one of the convictions (Case No. 71-847), affirmed another as modified (Case No. 71-846), and remanded a third case (Case No. 71-848) with directions to the trial court to determine whether petitioner’s right to á speedy trial under Florida…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Easton v. State, 250 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- State v. Balint Papp, 298 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1974)