Dygart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dygart v. State

163 So. 3d 1292, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8183, 2015 WL 3408104

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 2015

DocketNo. 1D13-4977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 So. 3d 1292 (Dygart 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

Dygart v. State, 163 So. 3d 1292, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8183, 2015 WL 3408104 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm based on Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). We are also bound by Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)), in which we held that dual convictions for violation of sections 847.0135(3) and 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2011), do not violate double jeopardy. Accord Littleman v. State, 159 So.3d 975, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Snow v. State, 157 So.3d 559, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has granted review of the conflict between the district courts. See Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138,1140-42 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 147 So.3d 527 (Fla.2014); see also Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486, 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141, 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm based on Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). We are also bound by Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)), in which we held that dual convictions for violation of sections 847.0135(3) and 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2011), do not violate double jeopardy. Accord Littleman v. State, 159 So.3d 975, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Snow v. State, 157 So.3d 559, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has granted review of the conflict between the district courts. See Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138,1140-42 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 147 So.3d 527 (Fla.2014); see also Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486, 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141, 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 3d 1292, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8183, 2015 WL 3408104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dygart-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack