Allen v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Allen v. State

684 So. 2d 819, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 33, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2156, 1996 WL 727129

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1996

DocketNo. 87941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 684 So. 2d 819 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. State, 684 So. 2d 819, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 33, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2156, 1996 WL 727129 (Fla. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Allen v. State, 671 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great pubbc importance:

WHETHER APPELLANTS MAY BE SEPARATELY CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR ARMED BURGLARY, ARMED ROBBERY, AND ARMED KIDNAPPING WHERE EACH OFFENSE IS PART OF THE SAME CRIMINAL EPISODE?

Id. at 234. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

[820]*820Our recent decisions in M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79 (Fla.1996), and State v. Maxwell, 682 So.2d 88 (Fla.1996), are controlling. Based upon M.P. and Maxwell, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.

The district court also questioned the proper interpretation of this Court’s decision in State v. Stearns, 645 So.2d 417 (Fla.1994), and its applicability to the instant case. Allen, 671 So.2d at 233-34. However, the court concluded that Steams was inapplicable here. Id. at 234. We agree. As we explained in M.P., Steams was limited to its specific facts and offenses and did not create a per se prohibition against multiple convictions and sentences arising from the same criminal episode. 682 So.2d at 80-82. We also agree with the district court that Allen’s convictions and sentences did not constitute impermissible multiple punishments for the same offense in this case.

Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Allen v. State, 671 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great pubbc importance:

WHETHER APPELLANTS MAY BE SEPARATELY CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR ARMED BURGLARY, ARMED ROBBERY, AND ARMED KIDNAPPING WHERE EACH OFFENSE IS PART OF THE SAME CRIMINAL EPISODE?

Id. at 234. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

[820]*820Our recent decisions in M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79 (Fla.1996), and State v. Maxwell, 682 So.2d 88 (Fla.1996), are controlling. Based upon M.P. and Maxwell, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.

The district court also questioned the proper interpretation of this Court’s decision in State v. Stearns, 645 So.2d 417 (Fla.1994), and its applicability to the instant case. Allen, 671 So.2d at 233-34. However, the court concluded that Steams was inapplicable here. Id. at 234. We agree. As we explained in M.P., Steams was limited to its specific facts and offenses and did not create a per se prohibition against multiple convictions and sentences arising from the same criminal episode. 682 So.2d at 80-82. We also agree with the district court that Allen’s convictions and sentences did not constitute impermissible multiple punishments for the same offense in this case.

Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 819, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 33, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2156, 1996 WL 727129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-fla-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack