Few v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Few v. State

533 So. 2d 914, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2547, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5076, 1988 WL 122443

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1988

DocketNo. 87-681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 533 So. 2d 914 (Few 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

Few v. State, 533 So. 2d 914, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2547, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5076, 1988 WL 122443 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of armed burglary, three counts of armed kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of aggravated assault. We affirm.

We.do not agree with defendant’s first contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to sever the trials of different offenses. See Livingston v. State, No. 68,323 (Fla. Mar. 10,1988) [13 FLW 187].

We do not agree with defendant’s second contention that a double jeopardy violation occurred from defendant having been convicted and sentenced for two armed robberies of the same victim during one automobile journey. The robberies, while committed, in a sense, during one “transac[915]*915tion,” were two discrete acts which involved different money at different locations from different banks. See Andrews v. State, 533 So.2d 841, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple convictions for “discrete acts committed during one transaction.”).

We find no merit in defendant’s third contention.

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of armed burglary, three counts of armed kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of aggravated assault. We affirm.

We.do not agree with defendant’s first contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to sever the trials of different offenses. See Livingston v. State, No. 68,323 (Fla. Mar. 10,1988) [13 FLW 187].

We do not agree with defendant’s second contention that a double jeopardy violation occurred from defendant having been convicted and sentenced for two armed robberies of the same victim during one automobile journey. The robberies, while committed, in a sense, during one “transac[915]*915tion,” were two discrete acts which involved different money at different locations from different banks. See Andrews v. State, 533 So.2d 841, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple convictions for “discrete acts committed during one transaction.”).

We find no merit in defendant’s third contention.

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 So. 2d 914, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2547, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5076, 1988 WL 122443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/few-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack