Springer v. State
This text of 736 So. 2d 1 (Springer 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.
Opinion
CONFESSION OF ERROR
We agree with the defendant’s contention, and the state’s appropriate concession, that Springer’s conviction as to the robbery with a firearm charge contained in count three may not be sustained because it is duplicitous of the charges and convictions in counts one and two. See Fraley v. State, 641 So.2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Nordelo v. State, 603 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Compare Smart v. State, 652 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Accordingly, the conviction as to count three is vacated and the cause remanded for resen-tencing as to counts one and two.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
736 So. 2d 1, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5764, 1995 WL 322562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springer-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.