From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 3, 1991
577 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-1004.

April 3, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, James T. Carlisle, J.

Margaret A. Broz, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We affirm appellant's convictions and sentences arising from an armed robbery. We write to expressly reject appellant's claims that his dual convictions for armed robbery and grand theft as well for armed robbery and aggravated assault violate double jeopardy.

The acts which gave rise to the charged offenses occurred subsequent to the effective date of the statutory amendment to section 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988), and therefore appellant's reliance upon Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), is misplaced. The effect of the statutory amendment is to return the law of double jeopardy to its pre- Carawan state, when the Blockburger analysis controlled. See Scarpillo v. State, 576 So.2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). A comparison of the statutory elements of armed robbery and grand theft reveal that each requires an element that the other does not, suggesting that the legislature intended dual convictions. See § 812.014, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988); § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1987); see also Blockburger. Further, in State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1984), a pre- Carawan decision, the supreme court expressly found that dual convictions for both armed robbery and aggravated assault were proper. See also Brown v. State, 569 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (dual convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault proper under statutory amendment to § 775.021(4)).

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

Accordingly, we hold that under section 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988), dual convictions for armed robbery and grand theft as well as for armed robbery and aggravated assault do not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We find no merit in appellant's other points on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Collins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 3, 1991
577 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Collins v. State

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK COLLINS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 3, 1991

Citations

577 So. 2d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Stone v. State

We reject the state's concession of error that appellant's dual convictions and sentences for two counts of…

Sirmons v. State

We note that we are in good company. Collins v. State, 577 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Huston v.…