Stripling v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Gracia v. State

    98 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Setting aside “more serious” second-degree felony to effect legislature's intent to punish firearm conduct with a substantial sentence

    We agree with the sole contention on this appeal that, as a matter of fundamental error which need not be, as it was not, raised below, see Rimondi v. State, 89 So.3d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the convictions and sentences entered as to both offenses, cannot stand under that aspect of the double jeopardy rule which forbids more than one successful prosecution for the same criminal conduct. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1991); Williams v. State, 83 So.3d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Salazar v. State, 892 So.2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Mondesir v. State, 814 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Sousa, 903 So.2d 923 (Fla.2005); Mosely v. State, 679 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Stripling v. State, 602 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Washington v. State, 597 So.2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). He was also found guilty of and sentenced for the separate offense of carrying a concealed firearm (count III), which is not involved in this appeal.

  2. Faria v. State

    660 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

    We find this point to be well taken and hereby strike the second three-year minimum mandatory sentence as to the robbery with a knife. State v. Rodriguez, 602 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 1992); Stripling v. State, 602 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Belcher v. State, 550 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Peck v. State, 425 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). As this issue was not raised in the prior motion, and the fundamental nature of this sentencing error is sufficient to require relief, we hold that such issue is not barred as successive. See Dowdell v. State, 500 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

  3. Stripling v. State

    645 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that a defendant can be convicted as a principal to armed robbery even if they do not actually possess the firearm during the robbery

    A different rule applies where section 775.087, Florida Statutes, is used to enhance the felony or impose a three-year mandatory minimum sentence. See State v. Rodriguez, 602 So.2d 1270, 1271-72 (Fla. 1992); Earnest v. State, 351 So.2d 957, 958-59 (Fla. 1977); Stripling v. State, 602 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Affirmed.

  4. State v. Rinkins

    634 So. 2d 763 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    We decline to comment as to whether we might have imposed a different punishment had we been the sentencing tribunal, inasmuch as the decisional law invests the sentencing court with wide discretion on such matters. Stripling v. State, 602 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (reversing life term imposed under subsection (4)(a)(1), where trial judge apparently deemed the sentencing result as mandatory). We are unwilling to embrace the state's argument that the trial judge lacked the discretion under subsection (4)(a)(1) to sentence a habitual felony offender to five years in prison, to be followed by life on probation.

  5. Johnson v. Singletary

    625 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, the minimum mandatory sentence was improper. Stripling v. State, 602 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Belcher v. State, 550 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Appellate counsel should have raised these points on appeal. His failure to do so demonstrates a deficient prejudicial performance.

  6. Mack v. State

    608 So. 2d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    Upon our consideration of the record and the state's confession of error, we reverse in part the convictions ordered below and vacate in part the sentences imposed. First, when a robbery conviction is enhanced because of the use of a firearm in the robbery, the single act with the same firearm cannot form the basis for a separate conviction and sentence. Stripling v. State, 602 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citing Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 1991)). Accordingly, Mack's conviction for unlawful display of a firearm must be reversed and that sentence vacated.