Neal v. State

910 So. 2d 929, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14678, 2005 WL 2254073
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Neal v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 854 So. 2d 666
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 19, 2005·No. No. 1D04-0167·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal from his convictions and sentences for crimes arising out of a prostitution enterprise that he ran through an escort service. We find only one issue has merit.

[930]*930The trial court reversibly erred by submitting to the jury for its consideration the charge against appellant involving unlawful sexual activity with a person sixteen or seventeen years of age (count VI) after having already granted appellant a judgment of acquittal as to that charge, thereby violating the prohibition against double jeopardy.' This court’s decision in Watson v. State, 410 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Smith v. Massachusetts, -U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1129, 160 L.Ed.2d 914 (2005), which specifically discusses Watson, are controlling. We, therefore, vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence as to count VI and remand with directions that he be discharged as to that count. In all other respects appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

WOLF, DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

Neal v. State, 910 So. 2d 929, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14678, 2005 WL 2254073 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

910 So. 2d 929 (Neal v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Massachusetts
543 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Watson v. State
410 So. 2d 207 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)