Essex v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Essex v. State

478 So. 2d 450, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16665

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1985

DocketNo. 84-153

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 450 (Essex 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

Essex v. State, 478 So. 2d 450, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16665 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The consolidation over the defendant’s objection of an information charging the offense of armed robbery with one charging the offense of carrying a concealed firearm was error despite the introduction of evidence that the firearm found concealed on the defendant’s person some six hours after the robbery was the same as that used to effect the robbery. See Finlay v. State, 424 So.2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Where, as here, unrelated offenses are consolidated for trial, prejudice to the defendant is conclusively presumed, and reversal of his conviction is required. Puhl v. State, 426 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Rubin v. State, 407 So.2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Macklin v. State, 395 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The consolidation over the defendant’s objection of an information charging the offense of armed robbery with one charging the offense of carrying a concealed firearm was error despite the introduction of evidence that the firearm found concealed on the defendant’s person some six hours after the robbery was the same as that used to effect the robbery. See Finlay v. State, 424 So.2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Where, as here, unrelated offenses are consolidated for trial, prejudice to the defendant is conclusively presumed, and reversal of his conviction is required. Puhl v. State, 426 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Rubin v. State, 407 So.2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Macklin v. State, 395 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 450, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essex-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack