Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. State

330 So. 2d 44, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14095

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1976

DocketNo. X-392

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 330 So. 2d 44 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 330 So. 2d 44, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14095 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

McCORD, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by jury and adjudicated guilty of seven crimes — two counts of grand larceny, two counts of using a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony, two counts of robbery and one count of sexual battery. He was sentenced only on the two counts of robbery and the one count of sexual battery. The two counts of grand larceny were lesser included offenses of the two counts of robbery. It was error for the trial judge"to adjudicate appellant guilty of the two lesser included offenses (grand larceny) as they were a part of the higher robbery offenses for which appellant had been convicted. The judgments as to the grand larceny offenses are reversed and the judgments and sentences as to the remaining offenses are affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.

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

McCORD, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by jury and adjudicated guilty of seven crimes — two counts of grand larceny, two counts of using a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony, two counts of robbery and one count of sexual battery. He was sentenced only on the two counts of robbery and the one count of sexual battery. The two counts of grand larceny were lesser included offenses of the two counts of robbery. It was error for the trial judge"to adjudicate appellant guilty of the two lesser included offenses (grand larceny) as they were a part of the higher robbery offenses for which appellant had been convicted. The judgments as to the grand larceny offenses are reversed and the judgments and sentences as to the remaining offenses are affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 44, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack