Roy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roy v. State

693 So. 2d 63, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1997 WL 163033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1723

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 63 (Roy 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

Roy v. State, 693 So. 2d 63, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1997 WL 163033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, although appellant raises a number of issues, we conclude that only one merits discussion. Appellant challenges his convictions for both carjacking with a firearm and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony as a violation of double jeopardy because both were predicated upon the same episode. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction for use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and remand with directions that the trial court vacate that conviction. See, e.g., M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79 (Fla.1996); State v. Brown, 633 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1994); Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1991). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, although appellant raises a number of issues, we conclude that only one merits discussion. Appellant challenges his convictions for both carjacking with a firearm and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony as a violation of double jeopardy because both were predicated upon the same episode. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction for use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and remand with directions that the trial court vacate that conviction. See, e.g., M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79 (Fla.1996); State v. Brown, 633 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1994); Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1991). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 63, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1997 WL 163033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack