Deviney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deviney v. State

579 So. 2d 373, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4618, 1991 WL 76516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1297

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 373 (Deviney 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

Deviney v. State, 579 So. 2d 373, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4618, 1991 WL 76516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the charge of misdemeanor driving under the influence (§ 316.193(1), Florida Statutes), in one count of an amended information, is a lesser included offense of driving under the influence with an accident (§ 316.193(3)(a), Florida Statutes) in a separate count arising out of the same arrest. We conclude that it is and that appellant has been sentenced twice for the same offense. Cf. Satterfield v. State, 553 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We do not address any question of whether the result in this case might have been different had the state not amended the initial charge in count I and had the state and court not agreed that the issue was preserved for appeal. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are reversed as to count I. Upon [374]*374remand, an amended judgment and sentence shall be entered as to count II.

DOWNEY, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the charge of misdemeanor driving under the influence (§ 316.193(1), Florida Statutes), in one count of an amended information, is a lesser included offense of driving under the influence with an accident (§ 316.193(3)(a), Florida Statutes) in a separate count arising out of the same arrest. We conclude that it is and that appellant has been sentenced twice for the same offense. Cf. Satterfield v. State, 553 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We do not address any question of whether the result in this case might have been different had the state not amended the initial charge in count I and had the state and court not agreed that the issue was preserved for appeal. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are reversed as to count I. Upon [374]*374remand, an amended judgment and sentence shall be entered as to count II.

DOWNEY, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 373, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4618, 1991 WL 76516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deviney-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack