Rosier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosier v. State

343 So. 2d 972, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15541

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1977

DocketNo. DD-130

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 343 So. 2d 972 (Rosier 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

Rosier v. State, 343 So. 2d 972, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15541 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant contends he may not be separately sentenced on five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence because the five victims were killed in a single automobile collision, characterized by appellant as a single transaction. We cannot assent. We have upheld separate sentences for violent crimes consecutively directed against , two or more persons. Booth v. State, 332 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We have also upheld separate sentences for violent crimes simultaneously directed toward two or more persons. Robinson v. State, 323 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Assuming as appellant argues that the accused there intended that his offense affect two or more persons, the same may be said for appellant’s culpable indifference to the safety and number of his victims in this case, which was equivalent to an intentional violation of their safety. Cornell v. State, 159 Fla. 687, 32 So.2d 610 (1947); Preston v. State, 56 So.2d 543 (Fla.1952); Maxey v. State, 64 So.2d 677 (Fla.1953).

The trial court erred, as the State concedes, in purporting to impose a driving prohibition as a condition of any future parole from the flat sentences imposed and purporting to require, alternatively, that a member of the parole commission then accompany appellant when he operates a vehicle “so that they will be in as much jeopardy as other innocent persons on the highways.”

The purported parole conditions are stricken from the sentences and, as so modified, the judgments are

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant contends he may not be separately sentenced on five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence because the five victims were killed in a single automobile collision, characterized by appellant as a single transaction. We cannot assent. We have upheld separate sentences for violent crimes consecutively directed against , two or more persons. Booth v. State, 332 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We have also upheld separate sentences for violent crimes simultaneously directed toward two or more persons. Robinson v. State, 323 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Assuming as appellant argues that the accused there intended that his offense affect two or more persons, the same may be said for appellant’s culpable indifference to the safety and number of his victims in this case, which was equivalent to an intentional violation of their safety. Cornell v. State, 159 Fla. 687, 32 So.2d 610 (1947); Preston v. State, 56 So.2d 543 (Fla.1952); Maxey v. State, 64 So.2d 677 (Fla.1953).

The trial court erred, as the State concedes, in purporting to impose a driving prohibition as a condition of any future parole from the flat sentences imposed and purporting to require, alternatively, that a member of the parole commission then accompany appellant when he operates a vehicle “so that they will be in as much jeopardy as other innocent persons on the highways.”

The purported parole conditions are stricken from the sentences and, as so modified, the judgments are

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 So. 2d 972, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosier-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack