HERVON CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; CLAYTON E. EUBANKS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; ERIC EARL WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Three defendants were jointly tried and convicted of robbery and use of a firearm in committing that robbery. On appeal, they challenged their sentences, which the trial court had imposed without specifying how much time applied to each count. The appellate court affirmed, interpreting the sentences as single sentences for the higher offense (robbery) consistent with controlling precedent.
The court affirmed the sentences, holding that the trial court properly imposed single sentences for the higher offense (robbery) under Cone v. State and did not commit reversible error. The court construed the sentences as single sentences for robbery, which was permissible when the two crimes were part of the same criminal act.
[1] A general sentence imposed on multiple counts is impermissible.
[2] When a defendant is convicted of robbery and the use of a firearm in the commission of that same robbery, and the two crimes are part of the same criminal act, only one s…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“such a sentence constitutes an impermissible "general sentence"”
Establishes that failing to specify allocation of sentences to individual counts violates sentencing requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Carter, Eubanks, and Williams were jointly charged and tried for robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of that robbery. All three …
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were jointly charged in a two-count information with (1) robbery and (2) use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, to wit: robbery. Tried jointly before a jury, all were convicted and sentenced and their respective appeals have been consolidated here.
Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we conclude that reversible error has not been shown and the respective judgments are severally affirmed.
Appellants — Eubanks and Carter were sentenced to a term of twenty years on both counts, while appellant — Williams was sentenced to thirty years on the same two counts. The trial court did not specify which portion of the respective sentences was to be served on each count. It has been held that such a sentence constitutes an impermissible “general sentence,” Landers v. State, 315 So. 2d 522 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Griffin v. State, 315 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Farmer v. State, 315 So. 2d 225 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla.App. 2nd 1975). It has also been held that where one is charged in a dual-count in formation with (1) robbery, and (2) the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, to wit: robbery, and it is shown that the two crimes are a part of the same criminal act, as was the case here, only one sentence should be imposed, that for the higher offense. Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973). We are satisfied that here, the trial court being aware of the requirement of the Cone case, supra, imposed a single sentence for the higher offense, robbery. We construe the respective sentences in that light and as thus construed no error is shown and the respective sentences are therefore severally affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…imposed for crimes charged in a dual-count information and representing facets of the same criminal transaction will be treated as having been imposed for the highest offense and therefore not considered to be a “general” sentence. Carter v. State, 330 So. 2d 508 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).12 Courts in some jurisdictions have disapproved general sentences on the basis of inferred statutory policies13 or judicially declared policy,14 usually with only minimal discussion, while other courts have affirmed general sent…
-
Modesto Bisono v. State, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Washington v. State, 51 Fla. 137, 40 So. 765; Reis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 666; Carter v. State, Fla.App.1976, 330 So. 2d 508 (opinion filed April 23, 1976); Dorfman v. State, Fla.App. 1976, 333 So. 2d 481 (opinion filed this date); § 790.07(2), Fla.Stat.; § 790.-10, Fla.Stat.…
-
Carmelo Gonzalez v. State, 342 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ent on all three convictions. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing a general sentence upon the three convictions rather than separate sentences. We find appellant’s contention to be without merit. See Carter v. State, 330 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Dorfman v. State, 333 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Bisono v. State, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Farmer v. State, 315 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Veras Griffin v. State, 315 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Landers v. State, 315 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)