Bolds v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolds v. State

723 So. 2d 900, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6, 1999 WL 2485

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1999

DocketNo. 97-03566

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 723 So. 2d 900 (Bolds 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

Bolds v. State, 723 So. 2d 900, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6, 1999 WL 2485 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of theft and one count of robbery. He was originally charged with three counts of robbery, but on two of the counts was found guilty of the lesser offense of theft. On appeal, he argues that one of his convictions and sentences for theft should be reversed. We agree.

The record indicates that appellant was originally accused of the robbery of three separate victims. However, when the information was filed, Counts II and III contained identical language charging appellant with the robbery of only one victim, Jose Velasquez. Since there is nothing to distinguish the two counts, and the information was never amended either orally or in writing, appellant has essentially been convicted and sentenced twice for the same offense in violation of his right against double jeopardy. See Miles v. State, 418 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

We therefore affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count II. In regard to Count III, we reverse his conviction and vacate his sentence. The robbery conviction in Count IV is affirmed.

THREADGILL and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of theft and one count of robbery. He was originally charged with three counts of robbery, but on two of the counts was found guilty of the lesser offense of theft. On appeal, he argues that one of his convictions and sentences for theft should be reversed. We agree.

The record indicates that appellant was originally accused of the robbery of three separate victims. However, when the information was filed, Counts II and III contained identical language charging appellant with the robbery of only one victim, Jose Velasquez. Since there is nothing to distinguish the two counts, and the information was never amended either orally or in writing, appellant has essentially been convicted and sentenced twice for the same offense in violation of his right against double jeopardy. See Miles v. State, 418 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

We therefore affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count II. In regard to Count III, we reverse his conviction and vacate his sentence. The robbery conviction in Count IV is affirmed.

THREADGILL and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 So. 2d 900, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6, 1999 WL 2485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolds-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack