Walker v. Cocalis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walker v. Cocalis

434 So. 2d 352, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1634

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 434 So. 2d 352 (Walker v. Cocalis) 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

Walker v. Cocalis, 434 So. 2d 352, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We determine that it would constitute double jeopardy to now try petitioner on the charge of armed robbery of a watch and wallet after petitioner had been charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He was convicted on possession of a stolen motor vehicle. We base this upon the fact that the motor vehicle in question and the watch and wallet were all stolen at the same time, from the same victim, at the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent. This was a single offense which cannot be divided so as to obtain multiple convictions. McClendon v. State, 372 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Castleberry v. State, 402 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Sanford v. State, 75 Fla. 393, 78 So. 340 (1918).

Respondent should be prohibited from trying petitioner on the charge of armed robbery, as alleged in the Information contained in Case No. 81-10552, now pending in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida.

The issuance of any formal writ is withheld. We assume the trial judge will comply with this decision.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We determine that it would constitute double jeopardy to now try petitioner on the charge of armed robbery of a watch and wallet after petitioner had been charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He was convicted on possession of a stolen motor vehicle. We base this upon the fact that the motor vehicle in question and the watch and wallet were all stolen at the same time, from the same victim, at the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent. This was a single offense which cannot be divided so as to obtain multiple convictions. McClendon v. State, 372 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Castleberry v. State, 402 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Sanford v. State, 75 Fla. 393, 78 So. 340 (1918).

Respondent should be prohibited from trying petitioner on the charge of armed robbery, as alleged in the Information contained in Case No. 81-10552, now pending in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida.

The issuance of any formal writ is withheld. We assume the trial judge will comply with this decision.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 So. 2d 352, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-cocalis-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack