Included Offense

22 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Bianchi v. United States
  219 F.2d 182· 8th Cir.· 1955-02-10 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the Anti-Racketeering Act's definition of extortion includes fear of economic loss, and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy and obstruction of commerce by extortion.
• Eagleston v. United States
  172 F.2d 194· 9th Cir.· 1949-01-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's verdict of assault with a dangerous weapon, and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Wilson v. State
  383 So. 2d 670· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-04-16 ·cited 33×
  The defendant was charged with battery upon a law enforcement officer but convicted of assault upon a law enforcement officer after the trial court instructed the jury on the assault charge. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the instruction was erron
• United States v. Woodward
  726 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making a false statement to customs merges with a conviction under 31 U.S.C. § 1058 for failing to report currency, as they constitute the same offense under the Blockburger test. Any error in admitting statements obtain
• Greene v. City OF Gulfport
  103 So. 2d 115· Fla.· 1958-04-16 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a municipal court's conviction of a defendant for an offense not charged or included in the indictment does not constitute double jeopardy when reversed and retried for the original charge. The court rejected the defendant's argument that convi
• Swindle v. State
  254 So. 2d 811· Fla. 2d DCA· 1971-11-12 ·cited 21×
  Appellant Swindle was convicted of possession of a fire bomb and sentenced by a jury verdict. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial judge gave two erroneous jury instructions: one that improperly included conspiracy to possess a fire bomb as
• Emory Lee Scott v. Mayo
  159 Fla. 816· Fla.· 1947-12-09 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner was not subject to a habitual offender sentence as charged because one of his prior felony convictions occurred on the same day as another. However, he was still subject to enhanced sentencin
• State of Fla. ex rel. Kenneth J. Miller v. The Honorable William A. Patterson
  284 So. 2d 9· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-10-17 ·cited 14×
  A Florida appellate court granted prohibition to prevent a defendant from being prosecuted for a felony charge after he pleaded guilty to a related misdemeanor charge in county court. The court held that the misdemeanor violation of Florida Statute § 316.027(1) (failure to remain
• Ex parte Vickery
  51 Fla. 141· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 12×
  In this habeas corpus petition, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of Record to try Vickery for manslaughter after his original murder conviction was reversed on appeal. The court clarified that a guilty verdict on a lesser included offense op
• Holmes v. State
  342 So. 2d 134· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-02-11 ·cited 10×
  The Florida appellate court reversed a conviction and sentence for leaving the scene of an accident with personal injury because the legislature failed to provide a statutory punishment for this offense, which was created by judicial construction as a misdemeanor. The court held
• Terrell v. Perini
  414 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1969-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant had exhausted his state remedies because there was no clear Ohio Supreme Court interpretation allowing a delayed appeal from the Court of Appeals' denial of a delayed appeal.
• Steverson v. State
  677 So. 2d 398· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statutes pertaining to attempted murder of a law enforcement officer do not permit sentence enhancement for second-degree attempted murder.
• Rowe v. A.L. Lockhart
  736 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the lineup identification was not unconstitutional and the rule of lenity did not apply to the sentencing issue.
• United States v. Anderson
  503 F.2d 420· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The stipulation that a child was born 'during the flight' is insufficient to establish special aircraft jurisdiction for the offense of attempted involuntary manslaughter.
• United States v. Anderson
  490 F.2d 785· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the identification procedures used were not impermissibly suggestive and did not violate the defendant's rights, and that the loss of an impeachment statement did not warrant reversal.
• Austin v. State
  336 So. 2d 480· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that spray from a can of mace, under the circumstances presented, does not constitute a deadly weapon sufficient to support a charge of aggravated assault.
• Kinchen v. State
  235 So. 2d 749· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-05-26 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Booky
  733 F.2d 1335· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a violation of the false statement statute cannot be used to enhance a penalty under the felony provision of the reporting act because it is an included offense.
• State v. Hart
  253 So. 2d 150· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-10-07 ·cited 2×
  The State appealed a trial court's order quashing charges of unlawful tax evasion and possession of containers for illegal alcohol based on double jeopardy, claiming they arose from the same criminal episode as a prior guilty plea to possession of illegal alcohol. The appellate c
• Cucco v. State
  356 So. 2d 58· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-03-14
  Revocation of probation based on a violation not alleged in the petition violates due process.
• King v. State
  267 So. 2d 351· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-04-18
• Chew v. United States
  298 F.2d 334· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-25
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for grand larceny should be affirmed because the lack of objection to hearsay evidence of value waived the issue on appeal, and no instruction on petit larceny was required.