GEORGE MICHAEL KELLY, 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.
The court held that reinstating a charge after granting a motion for acquittal constitutes reversible error, and a general sentence for multiple counts is invalid.
Appellant was charged with multiple offenses, including malicious destruction of a jail cell and a police car. The trial court granted a motion for ac…
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 General Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises several points on this timely appeal. After due consideration of the record we find only one merits discussion.
At the conclusion of the state’s case appellant moved for judgments of acquittal as to Counts V and VI of the information which charged him with malicious destruction of a jail cell and malicious destruction of a police car respectively. The court granted the motion as to Count VI involving the police car. After the close of appellant’s case, the court announced that it was reinstating Count VI and that the motion had been one of dismissal rather than acquittal. We do not agree and hold this decision by the trial judge constitutes reversible error. Appellant was clearly prejudiced by having the charge reinstated after he had rested his case. The grant of the motion for acquittal acts as a bar to subsequent prosecution. Cf., Potter v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 938, 109 So. 91.
We note that appellant was sentenced to a concurrent one year sentence for Counts III-VI of the information. (These four counts were the two aforementioned charges of malicious destruction of public property and two counts of assault and battery.) This was an invalid general sentence as to those four counts. See Long v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1975, 310 So. 2d 35. Accordingly, we vacate this portion of the sentence.
The trial court is directed to vacate the judgment and sentence on Count VI; discharge appellant as to that count; and enter proper sentences on Counts III, IV and V. The judgment and sentence rendered on Counts I and II are affirmed. The judgment as to Counts III, IV and V is affirmed.
REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED for proper sentencing.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…th instructions to order resentencing. The court’s decision is affirmed in all other respects. OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD and SUND-BERG, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., concurs in result only. . The district court’s decision conflicts with Kelly v. State, 334 So. 2d 128 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), and with King v. State, 320 So. 2d 19 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), thereby providing this Court with jurisdiction pursuant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. . § 800.04, Fla.Stat. (1969). Since the general revision of Florida’s criminal pena…1 / 2
-
Watson v. State, 410 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…the aggravated battery count would place him in double jeopardy. The court disagreed on the grounds that additional testimony would not be required as appellant would merely be required to proceed with his case. Appellant relies on Kelly v. State, 334 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976), for reversal. In Kelly, the court held that the grant of a motion for acquittal on the charge of malicious destruction of a police car after the state’s case was concluded acted as a bar to subsequent prosecution and that reinst…
-
Boone v. State, 805 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…that would permit its retraction or correction.” Watson v. State, 410 So. 2d 207, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, submitting the lesser included offense of improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon to the jury was error. See id.; Kelly v. State, 334 So. 2d 128, 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding that after trial court had granted motion for judgment of acquittal, it was error to reinstate the charge and submit it to the jury after the defendant had rested his case). The conviction for improper exhibition of…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Potter v. State, 91 Fla. 938 (Fla. 1926)
- Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)