BABROW v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

BABROW v. State

62 So. 3d 1205, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8394, 2011 WL 2200633

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2011

Docket4D09-1072

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 So. 3d 1205 (BABROW v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BABROW v. State, 62 So. 3d 1205, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8394, 2011 WL 2200633 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZOURI, J.

Defendant, Mario Babrow, appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary with assault or battery, assault, and battery. Babrow raises three issues on appeal: (1) the state’s closing argument constituted fundamental error; (2) Babrow was improperly sentenced as a prison re-leasee reoffender; and (3) Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery violated his constitutional double jeopardy protection. While we find the first two issues lack merit, we reverse Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery.

“Determining whether double jeopardy is violated based on undisputed facts is a purely legal determination, so the standard of review is de novo.” Finkley v. State, 16 So.3d 329, 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Binns v. State, 979 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted)). “The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the state and federal constitutions protects criminal defendants from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense.” McKinney v. State, 51 So.3d 645, 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17, 19 (Fla.2001)).

In the instant case, the state concedes that Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery should be vacated because they violate double jeopardy. Following a jury trial, Babrow was found guilty of burglary with assault or battery, assault, and battery. All three counts involved the same victim and incident and the verdict form did not indicate whether the jury determined Babrow had committed “burglary with an assault,” or “burglary with a battery.” Consequently, Babrow’s convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. See, e.g., Torna v. State, 742 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that convictions for both burglary with an assault and/or battery, and simple battery, arising from the same *1207 criminal episode, violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, absent specification that former conviction was for burglary with an assault, rather than burglary with a battery).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery because they violate double jeopardy. We affirm Ba-brow’s conviction for burglary with assault or battery, and remand for resentencing on this conviction.

Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded.

GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur.

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

HAZOURI, J.

Defendant, Mario Babrow, appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary with assault or battery, assault, and battery. Babrow raises three issues on appeal: (1) the state’s closing argument constituted fundamental error; (2) Babrow was improperly sentenced as a prison re-leasee reoffender; and (3) Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery violated his constitutional double jeopardy protection. While we find the first two issues lack merit, we reverse Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery.

“Determining whether double jeopardy is violated based on undisputed facts is a purely legal determination, so the standard of review is de novo.” Finkley v. State, 16 So.3d 329, 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Binns v. State, 979 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted)). “The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the state and federal constitutions protects criminal defendants from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense.” McKinney v. State, 51 So.3d 645, 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17, 19 (Fla.2001)).

In the instant case, the state concedes that Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery should be vacated because they violate double jeopardy. Following a jury trial, Babrow was found guilty of burglary with assault or battery, assault, and battery. All three counts involved the same victim and incident and the verdict form did not indicate whether the jury determined Babrow had committed “burglary with an assault,” or “burglary with a battery.” Consequently, Babrow’s convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. See, e.g., Torna v. State, 742 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that convictions for both burglary with an assault and/or battery, and simple battery, arising from the same *1207 criminal episode, violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, absent specification that former conviction was for burglary with an assault, rather than burglary with a battery).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate Babrow’s convictions for assault and battery because they violate double jeopardy. We affirm Ba-brow’s conviction for burglary with assault or battery, and remand for resentencing on this conviction.

Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded.

GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 3d 1205, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8394, 2011 WL 2200633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babrow-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack