Figgs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Figgs v. State

123 So. 3d 680, 2013 WL 5658356, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16589

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2013

DocketNo. 5D11-4221

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 3d 680 (Figgs 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

Figgs v. State, 123 So. 3d 680, 2013 WL 5658356, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16589 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

David Figgs (defendant) timely appeals his sentences for carjacking with a firearm¹, aggravated assault², and armed robbery.³ He contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in adjudicating him guilty and sentencing him on both the armed robbery and the carjacking with a firearm charges because the only item he took from the victim was the key to the car that he carjacked. The State properly concedes that the defendant’s dual convictions violate double jeopardy. See Hanfield v. State, 40 So.3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Price v. State, 816 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s conviction for carjacking with a firearm and direct the trial court to vacate that conviction and sentence. We affirm the defendant’s other convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

David Figgs (defendant) timely appeals his sentences for carjacking with a firearm¹, aggravated assault², and armed robbery.³ He contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in adjudicating him guilty and sentencing him on both the armed robbery and the carjacking with a firearm charges because the only item he took from the victim was the key to the car that he carjacked. The State properly concedes that the defendant’s dual convictions violate double jeopardy. See Hanfield v. State, 40 So.3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Price v. State, 816 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s conviction for carjacking with a firearm and direct the trial court to vacate that conviction and sentence. We affirm the defendant’s other convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 3d 680, 2013 WL 5658356, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/figgs-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack