Jose Macias v. State of Florida

190 So. 3d 687, 2016 WL 2342885, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6777
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 4, 2016
Docket4D14-3509
StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 687 (Jose Macias v. State of Florida) 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
Jose Macias v. State of Florida, 190 So. 3d 687, 2016 WL 2342885, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6777 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, J.

A jury found Appellant, Jose Macias, guilty of one count of lewd or lascivious battery, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, one count of kidnapping, and one count of a, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery. The court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him on all counts except for the lewd or lascivious molestation count, which it “held in abeyance.” On appeal, Appellant takes issue with several of the court’s evidentiary rulings at trial. He also argues that the court’s decision to hold his lewd or lascivious molestation conviction in abeyance constitutes a violation of double jeopardy.

We find no error in any of the court’s underlying evidentiary rulings and thus affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences for lewd or lascivious battery, kidnapping, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery without further comment. However, we agree with Appellant that the court’s decision to hold the lewd or lascivious molestation count in abeyance violated double jeopardy as Appellant could not be convicted of both lewd' or lascivious battery and lewd or lascivious molestation arising out of the same conduct. Graves v. State, 96 So.3d 1033, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The State properly concedes error on this issue. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the verdict of *688 guilt'as to lewd or lascivious molestation count. See Burford v. State, 8 So.3d 478, 480-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (remanding for vacation of conviction for offense which was held “in abeyance” because the conviction violated double jeopardy).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.,,

GROSg and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur.

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

Related

Burford v. State
8 So. 3d 478 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Kessell v. State
96 So. 3d 1031 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 So. 3d 687, 2016 WL 2342885, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-macias-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.