Merger Of Offenses

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

• United States v. Shelton
  249 F.2d 871· 7th Cir.· 1957-12-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant who pleads guilty and is represented by counsel is not entitled to be advised of a right to appeal, and the sufficiency of the indictment cannot be questioned on a motion to vacate unless facially defective.
• Gant v. United States
  161 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1947-04-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a second, consecutive sentence imposed for an offense already punishable by a valid, partially served sentence is illegal and should be expunged.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Reuben Dowling
  633 F.2d 660· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that separate sentences for federal bank robbery counts (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d)) were improper as they merged, but a consecutive sentence for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) was permissible. It also held that separate sentences for territorial assault counts (14
• United States v. Moss
  562 F.2d 155· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while some bankruptcy fraud counts were multiplicitous and merged, others were distinct, and the use of immunized testimony for impeachment was permissible when the defendant conceded perjury.
• Curtis v. United States
  546 F.2d 1188· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 28×
  Consecutive sentences for conspiracy to distribute narcotics and substantive narcotics offenses are permissible, as Wharton's Rule does not apply.
• United States v. Valot
  481 F.2d 22· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 28×
  Consecutive sentences for importation and possession of hashish aboard an aircraft are unlawful as the offenses merge, but consecutive sentences for importation and possession with intent to distribute are permissible. The speedy trial rules were not violated due to exceptional c
• United States v. Fried
  436 F.2d 784· 6th Cir.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an eyewitness identification was not impermissibly suggestive and that the conviction for entering the bank merged with the larceny conviction only for sentencing purposes, not for offenses.
• Rosengarten v. State
  171 So. 2d 591· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-02-05 ·cited 28×
  Theodore Rosengarten, president and principal shareholder of a construction company, was convicted of grand larceny after obtaining a $25,000 loan from Maurice Krull by misrepresenting mortgages as first mortgages when they were not. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed
• Sawyer v. United States
  312 F.2d 24· 8th Cir.· 1963-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that under the Federal Bank Robbery Act, lesser offenses do not merge into more aggravated ones for sentencing, and the court can uphold the longer sentence to reflect the sentencing judge's intent.
• United States v. DI Canio
  245 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1957-07-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that minor omissions in a trial transcript, due to the original reporter's death, do not warrant a new trial if they are not prejudicial and the record as a whole is sufficient.
• Remine v. United States
  161 F.2d 1020· 6th Cir.· 1947-05-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the district court committed a technical error in sentencing, the appellant was not prejudiced, and the sentences on lesser counts should be merged into the longest sentence.
• v. ID No. 0408022175 Paul Edward Weber
  2014 WL 4167492· Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-06-08 ·cited 26×
  The Delaware Superior Court denied the defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing, finding it unnecessary. The court also denied the defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence under Rule 35(a) and Rule 35(b). Under Rule 35(a), the court found that the defendant's double je
• Neal v. State
  527 So. 2d 966· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-07 ·cited 26×
  Defendant's armed robbery conviction affirmed, but convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon in commission of felony reversed as lesser-included offenses arising from the same conduct.
• 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
• Bayless v. United States
  347 F.2d 354· 9th Cir.· 1965-06-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while separate sentences for subsections (a) and (d) of the Bank Robbery Act are improper due to merger, the appellant was not prejudiced by the imposition of a lesser concurrent sentence for the merged offense.
• Reno v. United States
  317 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.
• Yancy Douglas Hardy v. United States
  292 F.2d 192· 8th Cir.· 1961-06-30 ·cited 26×
  A court may vacate a shorter concurrent sentence and allow a longer sentence to stand, even if the shorter sentence has been served, when both sentences are for distinct but related offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2113.
• Madigan v. Selvie W. Wells
  224 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-18 ·cited 26×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition after a prior motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied.
• United States v. Solimine
  536 F.2d 703· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 25×
  A defendant cannot be convicted of both theft and possession of the same stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. § 659, as the possession offense is intended for receivers, not the original thieves.
• Caylor v. State
  78 So. 3d 482· Fla.· 2011-10-27 ·cited 24×
  Matthew Lee Caylor was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery involving great physical force, and aggravated child abuse in the 2008 killing of thirteen-year-old Melinda Hinson in Panama City, Florida. The jury recommended death by a vote of 8-4, and the trial court imp
• United States v. Walker
  817 F.2d 461· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions on self-defense were adequate, the admission of a prior conviction for impeachment was not reversible error, and the sentence imposed was within the court's discretion.
• United States v. Zacherie Leroy Crew
  538 F.2d 575· 4th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 24×
  Separate sentences for carrying and using a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are improper when the carrying is incidental to the use, as the offenses merge. However, sentences for armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are permi
• United States v. Thomas
  459 F.2d 1172· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to properly instruct the jury on the essential element of 'willfulness' for the cruelty to children charge and by failing to specify the date of the offense for that charge. The manslaughter conviction was affir
• Gilinsky v. United States
  335 F.2d 914· 9th Cir.· 1964-08-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a factual determination is necessary to resolve whether multiple counts charging interstate transportation of forged checks constitute a single offense, and thus vacated the district court's order.
• Jewell C. Woods v. United States
  240 F.2d 37· D.C. Cir.· 1956-12-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of illegally obtained evidence was prejudicial to all appellants, not just Shay, and their convictions should be reversed unless the jury's judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.
• Adams v. State
  310 So. 2d 782· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it was error to enter separate judgments for felony murder and the underlying felony (robbery), as the latter merges into the former. It also held that the sentence imposed was legally impossible given the conviction for first-degree murder and the plea agreem
• United States v. Fleming
  504 F.2d 1045· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that multiple sentences for a single bank robbery under different subsections of the Federal Bank Robbery Act are improper, and that placing multiple lives in jeopardy during one robbery constitutes only one offense under § 2113(d).
• United States v. Hopkins
  464 F.2d 816· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the conviction for entering a bank with intent to rob and one count of armed robbery must be vacated due to merger principles, and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon must be vacated, with one count remanded for resentencing.
• Green v. United States
  274 F.2d 59· 1st Cir.· 1960-01-20 ·cited 22×
  A motion under Rule 35 is for correction of illegal sentences, not improper convictions, and the court affirmed the denial of the motion.
• Simunov v. United States
  162 F.2d 314· 6th Cir.· 1947-06-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a sentence must be certain and unambiguous, and that the lower court's imposition of a blanket sentence with an added term for kidnapping created impermissible ambiguity.
• United States v. Jardins
  772 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's reversal of Woodward requires reinstatement of the defendant's conviction for making a fraudulent statement to a customs agent, and that the defendant's other challenges to this conviction lack merit.
• United States v. Lozano
  511 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the validity of a marriage is immaterial to conspiracy and concealment charges related to immigration fraud, it is material to false statement charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1546, and that substantive offenses do not merge into a conspiracy charge.
• Clermont v. United States
  432 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while convictions for aggravated bank robbery offenses with different victims are distinct, lesser offenses merge into the most aggravated offense for sentencing purposes.
• COY v. Johnston
  136 F.2d 818· 9th Cir.· 1943-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the sentence on count two was invalid as it exceeded statutory limits, but the sentence on count one was valid and should be upheld.
• United States v. Upthegrove
  504 F.2d 682· 6th Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the automobile, and that the conviction for simple possession merged with the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Parker
  442 F.2d 779· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for bank robbery and that the prosecutor's question about prior confinement did not constitute reversible error. However, the conviction for entering a bank with intent to rob merged with the c
• United States v. Nirenberg
  242 F.2d 632· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of a further continuance was a sound exercise of discretion and that the seizure of items incidental to a lawful arrest was permissible. The sentence on Count 2 was vacated due to merger.
• Prince v. United States
  230 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that violations of different subsections of the Bank Robbery Act, including an aggravated offense under subsection (d), can result in multiple convictions and consecutive sentences if they constitute separate crimes.
• Ellis R. Mason v. State
  665 So. 2d 328· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-12-22 ·cited 16×
  Ellis Mason appeals his convictions for aggravated battery, carjacking, kidnapping, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. The appellate court affirms all convictions but vacates and remands for resentencing on the habitual offender enhancement to the kidnapping charge, which can
• United States v. Amos
  566 F.2d 899· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that concurrent sentences for bank robbery and bank larceny arising from a single transaction constitute double jeopardy, and the conviction for the lesser offense merges into the conviction for the greater offense.
• United States v. Vasquez
  504 F.2d 555· 5th Cir.· 1974-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while multiple convictions under different subsections of the federal bank robbery statute are permissible, imposing separate sentences for offenses arising from the same transaction under subsections (a), (d), and (e) of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 is improper.
• United States v. Samuel Dunkel & Co., Inc.
  184 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1950-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictments and proof did not establish multiple conspiracies, that consolidation of indictments was proper, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Brown
  412 F.2d 381· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a note threatening death, even without a displayed weapon, can constitute intimidation sufficient for an attempted bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
• Kennedy v. State
  59 So. 3d 376· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-05-04 ·cited 14×
  Valerie Kennedy was convicted of aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse in the death of her three-year-old son from scalding burns. The Fourth District reversed the aggravated child abuse conviction due to fundamental error in the jury instruction on 'maliciously,' bu
• United States v. Earl L. Nickerson (78-5368)
  606 F.2d 156· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the district judge erred in submitting the admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay to the jury, the error was harmless and did not prejudice the defendants. Other arguments raised on appeal were also found to be without merit.
• Stevens v. State
  372 So. 2d 1370· Fla.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that imposing separate sentences for aggravated robbery and for displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony is improper when the firearm display is an element of the robbery.
• United States v. Henciar
  568 F.2d 489· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly submitted the issue of entrapment to the jury and that evidence of prior drug sales was admissible to show intent and predisposition. However, one of two concurrent sentences imposed on Albert must be vacated.
• United States v. Ohlson
  552 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the conspiracy charge and the racketeering charge do not merge, as the racketeering statute does not require the participation of two persons and Congress intended them to be separate offenses.
• United States v. Arman Kiliyan, Jr.
  504 F.2d 1153· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that cumulative sentences for the distinct offenses of unlawfully making firearms and unlawfully transferring those firearms are permissible under 26 U.S.C. § 5871, even if the total sentence exceeds ten years.
• United States v. Tyler
  466 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction based on the concurrent sentence doctrine, despite the potential applicability of the Heflin-Milanovich rule.