State v. McCray

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. McCray

474 So. 2d 856, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1955, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15484

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2317

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 856 (State v. McCray) 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

State v. McCray, 474 So. 2d 856, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1955, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15484 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

Where defendant was convicted and sentenced for strong-armed robbery on a guilty plea after the victim had died from injuries suffered in the course of the offense, the double jeopardy prohibition barred a new prosecution for homicide. Cf. State v. Kirkland, 401 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1981); Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184, 125 So. 345 (1929) (double jeopardy prohibition not a bar to new prosecution for murder where defendant is convicted of strong-armed robbery prior to death of robbery victim). The trial court’s finding, that the State in the exercise of due diligence could have ascertained that the victim succumbed the day prior to the court’s acceptance of the guilty plea, is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

The order dismissing the indictment is

Affirmed.

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

FERGUSON, Judge.

Where defendant was convicted and sentenced for strong-armed robbery on a guilty plea after the victim had died from injuries suffered in the course of the offense, the double jeopardy prohibition barred a new prosecution for homicide. Cf. State v. Kirkland, 401 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1981); Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184, 125 So. 345 (1929) (double jeopardy prohibition not a bar to new prosecution for murder where defendant is convicted of strong-armed robbery prior to death of robbery victim). The trial court’s finding, that the State in the exercise of due diligence could have ascertained that the victim succumbed the day prior to the court’s acceptance of the guilty plea, is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

The order dismissing the indictment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 856, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1955, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mccray-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack