DAWAYNE IVAN SHAZER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2009-03-11
No. 4D07-4646
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
3 So. 3d 453 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2009) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The State agrees that appellant’s dual convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon and grand theft violate his double jeopardy rights because the same property formed the basis for both convictions. See Ingram v. State, 928 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft and remand with directions to the trial court to vacate the same.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McKINNEY v. State, 66 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 2011)
    …decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in McKinney v. State, 24 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Shazer v. State, 3 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Because we find our decision in Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla.2009), controlling, we disapprove of the Fourth District’s decision in Shazer and approve the Fifth Dis…
  • McKINNEY v. State, 24 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
    …t, utilizing the analysis mandated by Valdes, we conclude that section 775.021(4)(b)2. does not prohibit McKinney’s convictions for robbery with a firearm and grand theft. In doing so, we expressly and directly certify conflict with Shazer v. State, 3 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), which holds to the contrary, relying on Sirmons rather than Valdes. We find no merit in the sole remaining issue. AFFIRMED. LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. . Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw