Decker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decker v. State

67 So. 3d 374, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11784, 2011 WL 3110914

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-631

StatusPublished

This text of 67 So. 3d 374 (Decker 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

Decker v. State, 67 So. 3d 374, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11784, 2011 WL 3110914 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her convictions for official misconduct and falsifying records. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a statement of particulars, because the motion essentially asked the state to prove its entire case before trial, and appellant failed to demonstrate a lack of notice, prejudice, surprise, or an inability to prepare an adequate defense. See Brown v. State, 473 So.2d 1260 (Fla.1985); Harrison v. State, 557 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, we find that appellant’s dual convictions -violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as both offenses arose out of the same factual event, and each offense does not contain a separate element not contained within the other. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for falsifying records.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her convictions for official misconduct and falsifying records. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a statement of particulars, because the motion essentially asked the state to prove its entire case before trial, and appellant failed to demonstrate a lack of notice, prejudice, surprise, or an inability to prepare an adequate defense. See Brown v. State, 473 So.2d 1260 (Fla.1985); Harrison v. State, 557 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, we find that appellant’s dual convictions -violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as both offenses arose out of the same factual event, and each offense does not contain a separate element not contained within the other. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for falsifying records.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 3d 374, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11784, 2011 WL 3110914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack