ROBERT LEWIS BENTON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction but vacated the improper sentencing on the second count, holding that when two offenses arise from the same criminal transaction, only one sentence for the higher offense may be imposed.
When two offenses constitute facets of the same criminal transaction, a court may impose only one sentence for the higher offense, and any sentence on the lesser offense is improper.
[1] Where two offenses constitute facets of the same criminal transaction, a court may impose only one sentence for the higher offense, and any sentence imposed on the lesser…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with assault to murder and firearm use in commission of a felony, both involving the same weapon. He pled nolo contendere to bot…
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 Criminal Transaction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged in a two-count information with assault to murder (first degree) with a deadly weapon and having or using a firearm while in the commission of a felony. Appellant pled nolo contendere to both counts. Following a presentence investigation, the court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to five years imprisonment as to Count One (assault to murder). The trial judge adjudged appellant guilty as to Count Two (use of firearm) and, noting that the sentence in Count Two would be merged into the sentence on Count One, placed Count Two on the absentee docket.
The firearm used in commission of the offense charged in Count Two was the same weapon used during the commission of the assault charged in Count One. It is now well settled by case law of this state that where two offenses are facets of the same criminal transaction, the court can only impose one sentence and that for the higher offense after conviction for both offenses. Hence, any sentence imposed as to Count Two is improper. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to correct its records by deleting from the judgment and sentence the reference as to Count Two being placed on the absentee docket. In all other respects the judgments and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farmer v. State, 330 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…th are facets of the same criminal transaction. We agree that the concurrent sentence for attempted robbery was improper. See Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 12; Union v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 322 So. 2d 643; Benton v. State, Fla.App.2d 1976, 330 So. 2d 203. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to vacate and set aside the concurrent sentence for attempted robbery; otherwise the sentences are affirmed. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.…