ERNEST MORENO, 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.
Moreno appeals the trial court's partial vacation of his multiple sentences imposed for crimes arising from a single 1970 incident involving a post office robbery plan. The court affirms most sentences while reversing the vacation of the kidnapping sentence, holding that the various offenses (breaking and entering, kidnapping, and petit larceny) constitute separate transactions under Florida law despite their common origin.
The court holds that petit larceny, breaking and entering the home, and breaking and entering the post office are not part of the same transaction because they are distinct in nature and time, each involving independent acts. Additionally, separate sentences for breaking and entering and kidnapping are not barred by the single transaction rule.
[1] The fact that multiple crimes arise out of the same incident is not sufficient to render them facets of the same transaction for purposes of sentencing.
[2] Separate sentences for distinct offenses, even if part of a common scheme or plan, are permissible if no one offense constitutes an essential element of another.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 fact that all crimes arose out of the same incident is not sufficient to render them facets of the same transaction.”
Establishes the legal principle that temporal and factual connection alone does not satisfy the single transaction rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1970, Moreno and co-defendants planned to steal money from the Dade City Post Office. They took a post office official from his home, forced him to…
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 Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
In 1970, Moreno and his co-defendants, planning to steal some money from the Dade City Post Office, took a post office official from his home and forced him to let them into the post office. They also took a coat and gun from the official during the incident.
Moreno and his co-defendants were each convicted of breaking and entering the official’s home with the intent to commit kidnapping, kidnapping, breaking and entering the post office with intent to commit a felony, and petit larceny of the gun and coat. For each defendant, separate sentences were entered on each conviction.
In 1974, appellant filed a motion under RCrP 3.850, contending that only one sentence was proper under the single transaction rule. The trial court vacated the sentence on the kidnapping charge, but refused to vacate any of the other sentences. Moreno filed this appeal from the court’s failure to vacate two of the other sentences, and the state has filed a cross assignment of error contending that the court erred in vacating the sentence for kidnapping.
The trial court was eminently correct in holding that petit larceny, breaking and entering the home of the postmaster, and breaking and entering the post office were not part of the same transaction. The fact that all crimes arose out of the same incident is not sufficient to render them facets of the same transaction. See, Estevez v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So. 2d 692; Jenkins v. Wainwright, Fla.1975, 322 So. 2d 477.1 While all the crimes here were part of the same general plan and may have been directed towards the same purpose, no one of the offenses constituted an essential element of another, rather all were distinct in nature and time, and each involved independent acts.
Furthermore, the state is correct in its contention that separate sentences for breaking and entering and for kidnapping are not barred by the same transaction rule. Estevez v. State, supra. In fairness to the trial judge, we point out that at the time of his ruling, he relied on Edmond v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 280 So. 2d 449, in which we held that breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and grand larceny, were facets of the same transaction. Edmond was overruled by the Supreme Court in Estevez, supra, shortly after the trial judge made his ruling in this case.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed insofar as it vacated the sentence on the kidnapping charge. Otherwise, the cause is affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . See also our recent opinion in State v. Peavey (Fla.App.2d 1975), 326 So. 2d 461. (Opinion filed December 10, 1975), wherein Chief Judge McNulty distinguished between what constitutes a “single episode” and a “single transaction.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 366 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…eted and then the imprisonment occurred upon the further actions of the defendant in confining the victims for transportation. See Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1975); Jackson v. State, 338 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Moreno v. State, 328 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). It may appear that the holding here was rendered moot by the reversal of the adjudication of guilt on the aggravated battery counts. Such is not the case inasmuch as the aggravated assault counts may be tried again. Accordingly…
-
Sammie Lee Jackson v. State, 338 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…r as set forth in Steele v. Mayo, 72 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1954), supra, Norwood v. Mayo, 74 So. 2d 370 (Fla.1954), supra, and Estevez v. State, supra, they are proper in this instance, and we so hold.” * * * * * * See also Moreno v. State, Fla.App.1976, 328 So. 2d 38 (released March 3, 1976). Even if a temporal distinction between the two crimes should have been necessary for the imposition of sentences on each of the two crimes, the facts of this case would meet such a test because the record shows that the de…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 328 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. The order of the trial court vacating the sentence for kidnapping is reversed; otherwise the cause is affirmed. See, Moreno v. State, Fla.App.2d 1976, 328 So. 2d 38 (Opinion filed March 3, 1976.) McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)
- Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)
- Ellis Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- State v. Peavey, 326 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)