LATRENERRA IEISHA STRIDIRON vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 2, 2022
• Docket: 21-2571
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LATRENERRA IEISHA STRIDIRON,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2571 LT Case No. 2019-CF-043920-A-X

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Charles G. Crawford, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Latrenerra Ieisha Stridiron, argues that the prohibition

against double jeopardy was violated when she was convicted and

sentenced for driving under the influence, causing serious bodily injury and

property damage to the same victim. The State concedes that Velazco v.

State, 342 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2022), decided ten months post-verdict, applies.

We agree and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant was found guilty following a jury trial, convicted, and

sentenced for Count One, driving under the influence with serious bodily

injury to Eden Tall, a third degree felony; Count Two, driving under the

influence with serious bodily injury to Scott Smith, a passenger in Ms. Tall’s

car; and Count Three, driving under the influence with damage to the

property of Eden Tall, a first degree misdemeanor. 1 She was sentenced to

five years in prison on Count One, four years in prison on Count Two, and

one year of probation on Count Three, all to be served consecutively. Counts

One and Three were violations of section 316.193(3), Florida Statutes

(2019), both were based on the same vehicular accident caused by

Appellant’s driving under the influence, and both concerned the same

individual victim.

1 Appellant does not appeal her conviction for Counts One or Two.

2 Appellant argues that double jeopardy prohibits her being convicted

and sentenced for both crimes as to Ms. Tall. The State commendably

concedes, and we agree that remand is required so that an amended

judgment and sentence can be entered.

Appellant relies upon Velazco v. State in which the Florida Supreme

Court recently held that where one incident and the same victim is involved,

“driving under the influence causing damage to property and serious bodily

injury to a person . . . are degree variants of the same criminal offense so

that [the prohibition against] double jeopardy is violated.” 342 So. 3d at 614.

Having considered the double jeopardy issue, we hold that the

conviction for driving under the influence causing property damage must be

vacated and an amended judgment deleting that conviction shall be entered.

REVERSED; in part and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.