JAMES G. O'NEAL, 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.
Appellant O'Neal challenges whether the trial court properly imposed three separate sentences for robberies of three victims occurring during one criminal episode. The court holds that multiple sentences for robberies of different victims are permissible even if part of a single criminal episode, and reverses the trial court's vacation of one sentence.
The trial court erred in vacating any of the sentences. Multiple sentences for robberies involving different victims are proper regardless of whether the robberies constitute a single criminal episode. The sentence for the robbery of Mr. Lutz must be reinstated.
[1] A trial court may impose separate sentences for each victim of a robbery, even if the robberies occurred as part of a single criminal episode.
[2] The doctrine of collateral estoppel, as applied in Ashe v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Since the appellant was convicted of robberies involving three victims, it was proper for the trial court to have imposed three separate sentences, irrespective of whether these robberies were part of one criminal episode.”
Establishes the core holding that multiple sentences for different victims are permissible regardless of whether crimes are part of one episode.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1970, O'Neal committed three robberies at Farmer John's Restaurant in St. Petersburg. He robbed Mr. Royal (proprietor) and Mr. Lutz (delivery man) …
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 Single Transaction Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
This appeal involves a question of whether it was improper for the trial court to impose three separate sentences against the appellant who was convicted of robberies of three victims, all of which occurred as part of one criminal episode. Appellant filed a 3.850 RCrP motion contending that two of the three sentences should be vacated. The trial court vacated one sentence and denied vacation of another. The appellant appeals and the State cross-appeals. We hold the trial court erred in vacating even one of the sentences and to that extent, we reverse.
In 1970, appellant was convicted of three robberies at Farmer John’s Restaurant in St. Petersburg. The robbery of victims Messrs. Royal and Lutz, proprietor and delivery man, occurred at the same time while robbery of Mrs. Jaquis, a store employee, occurred five to ten minutes later, upon her reporting to work.
Appellant was sentenced to from 1 to 15 years on conviction on April 28, 1970, for robbery of Mr. Royal. At a trial on May 12, 1970, appellant was found guilty of the robberies of both Mr. Lutz and Mrs. Jaquis and was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences to run consecutive to the sentence previously imposed for robbery of Royal.1
On this 3.850 RCrP motion, the trial judge concluded that since the robbery of Messrs. Royal and Lutz terminated just before Mrs. Jaquis came on the scene, the first two robberies were part of the same transaction and that one of the sentences should therefore be vacated. Accordingly, he vacated appellant’s sentence for robbery of Mr. Lutz. However, he denied appellant’s motion to vacate the sentence for robbery of Mrs. Jaquis on grounds that it was a later event and not part of the same transaction as the robberies perpetrated against Messrs. Royal and Lutz.
Since the appellant was convicted of robberies involving three victims, it was proper for the trial court to have imposed three separate sentences, irrespective of whether these robberies were part of one criminal episode. Trousdale v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 287 So. 2d 721; Harris v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 286 So. 2d 32; Ellis v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 298 So. 2d 527.2
Appellant’s reliance on the “collateral estoppel” rationale of Ashe v. Swenson, 1970, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed. 2d 469, as applicable to either the “single transaction” concept or a double jeopardy question, is patently misplaced. See State v. Stiefel, Fla.App.2d 1972, 256 So. 2d 581.
Therefore, the trial court’s order vacating appellant’s sentence for robbery of Lutz is reversed and such sentence is reinstated; otherwise affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur. . Convictions of the robberies of Lutz and Jaquis were affirmed by this court. O’Neal v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 245 So. 2d 696.
. The “same” or “single transaction” doctrine and the characteristics which distinguish it from the “single episode” eases are explained in Chief Judge McNulty’s opinion in State v. Peavey, Fla.App.2d, 326 So. 2d 461, opinion filed December 10, 1975.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…in part, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). . Holmes v. State, 453 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), affirmed, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1976); Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). See also Green v. State, 496 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Morales v. State, 451 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). . See Stirone v. Uni…
-
Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…characterized as an offense against the individual. Thus two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences. Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1973), and O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); contra Hill v. State, 293 So. 2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). We reject the state’s argument that the Hearn rule was nullified by the addition of subdivision (4) to section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1976).1 By its own terms the amendme…
-
Cliff Anthony Jackson v. State, 650 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…State, 362 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Committing multiple robberies of one entity involving several victims, however, is considered a single-episode case, not a single-transaction case. Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983); O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1976); Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). In single-episode cases, a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for committing several crimes within a single criminal episode.1 In…
Authorities Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970)
- Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Stiefel, 256 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- State v. Peavey, 326 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Trousdale v. State, 287 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Luna v. State, 245 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)