Melecio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Melecio v. State

879 So. 2d 647, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886, 2004 WL 1401242

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-0037

StatusPublished

This text of 879 So. 2d 647 (Melecio 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

Melecio v. State, 879 So. 2d 647, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886, 2004 WL 1401242 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Lovitto Melecio, appeals his conviction and sentence of robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery and two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Appellant raises several issues on appeal, only one of which we find meritorious.

Appellant contends, and the State concedes, that the record establishes the existence of a single conspiracy, as opposed to two separate and distinct conspiracies. The State argues, however, that the error is harmless because eliminating one of three, concurrent 15-year sentences — all concurrent to a life sentence. — would have no effect on appellant’s time in prison. Florida courts generally do not adhere to the concurrent sentence doctrine, which is essentially what the State is advocating. Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000); Seccia v. State, 786 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Grant v. State, 756 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction as to Count VI, which charges a second conspiracy, and vacate appellant’s adjudication and sentence on that count.

WOLF, C.J., BROWNING, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Lovitto Melecio, appeals his conviction and sentence of robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery and two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Appellant raises several issues on appeal, only one of which we find meritorious.

Appellant contends, and the State concedes, that the record establishes the existence of a single conspiracy, as opposed to two separate and distinct conspiracies. The State argues, however, that the error is harmless because eliminating one of three, concurrent 15-year sentences — all concurrent to a life sentence. — would have no effect on appellant’s time in prison. Florida courts generally do not adhere to the concurrent sentence doctrine, which is essentially what the State is advocating. Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000); Seccia v. State, 786 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Grant v. State, 756 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction as to Count VI, which charges a second conspiracy, and vacate appellant’s adjudication and sentence on that count.

WOLF, C.J., BROWNING, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

879 So. 2d 647, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886, 2004 WL 1401242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melecio-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack