Pires v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pires v. State

866 So. 2d 1276, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3324, 2004 WL 432466

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 2004

DocketNo. 4D01-2527

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 866 So. 2d 1276 (Pires 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

Pires v. State, 866 So. 2d 1276, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3324, 2004 WL 432466 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct, one (Count I) for touching the breasts, or the clothing covering them, of a person over twelve but less than sixteen years of age, and the other (Count III) for inserting his tongue into the mouth of a person under sixteen years of age. The state concedes that the two convictions violate double jeopardy under the authority of Eaddy v. State, 789 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), because both acts occurred in one location without a temporal break between them so that the defendant had “time to pause, reflect, and form a new criminal intent between the occurrences.” Id. at 1095 (citing Nicholson v. State, 757 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Saavedra v. State, 576 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for Count III.

WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct, one (Count I) for touching the breasts, or the clothing covering them, of a person over twelve but less than sixteen years of age, and the other (Count III) for inserting his tongue into the mouth of a person under sixteen years of age. The state concedes that the two convictions violate double jeopardy under the authority of Eaddy v. State, 789 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), because both acts occurred in one location without a temporal break between them so that the defendant had “time to pause, reflect, and form a new criminal intent between the occurrences.” Id. at 1095 (citing Nicholson v. State, 757 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Saavedra v. State, 576 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for Count III.

WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 So. 2d 1276, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3324, 2004 WL 432466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pires-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack