Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Williams v. State

673 So. 2d 486, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 199, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 774, 1996 WL 234246

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 9, 1996·No. No. 86476·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Williams v. State, 658 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 21 Fla.L.Weekly S154, — So.2d — [1996 WL 154126] (Fla. April 4, 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In Johnson, we held that aggravated stalking and the defendant’s violation of an injunction were two separate offenses, and double jeopardy did not bar a subsequent prosecution. In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Williams v. State, 658 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 21 Fla.L.Weekly S154, — So.2d — [1996 WL 154126] (Fla. April 4, 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In Johnson, we held that aggravated stalking and the defendant’s violation of an injunction were two separate offenses, and double jeopardy did not bar a subsequent prosecution. In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 486, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 199, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 774, 1996 WL 234246 (Fla. 1996).

Pincite

673 So. 2d 486 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related