AUGUSTIN FLEURIMOND
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment without elaborating on the specific merits of appellant's claims.
[1] A traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and the sentence, while a Rule 3.800(a) challenge is limited to claims that a sentence itself is illeg…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[A] traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that a sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction.”
Court's citation to Coughlin v. State explaining the distinction between types of appellate challenges
Augustin Fleurimond appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved a challenge to a conviction and/or sentence under…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Double Jeopardy Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 5, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D23-2181 Lower Tribunal No. F06-34231B ________________ Augustin Fleurimond, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Clayton R. Kaeiser, P.A., and Clayton R. Kaeiser, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Desue v. State, 917 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[A] traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that a sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Erron L. Bing v. State, 917 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)