Warning: include() [function.include]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /home/banksand/public_html/resources/opinions/BoldsFlorida.php on line 27

Warning: include(http://www.banksandmorris.com/navmenu.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /home/banksand/public_html/resources/opinions/BoldsFlorida.php on line 27

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'http://www.banksandmorris.com/navmenu.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php') in /home/banksand/public_html/resources/opinions/BoldsFlorida.php on line 27
Home > Resources > Opinions > Bolds v. State of Florida 723 So.2d 900
723 So.2d 900, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D163
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
Gregory Lamar BOLDS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-03566
Jan. 6, 1999.

Defendant was charged by information with three counts of robbery. Following trial in the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Cynthia A. Holloway, defendant was found guilty of one count of robbery and two counts of lesser offense of theft. Defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Campbell, Acting C.J., held that conviction of two counts of robbery under information containing identical language in both counts dealing with only one victim violated double jeopardy.
Affirmed in part, and reversed and vacated in part.

*900 James C. Banks, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
*901 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anne E. Sheer, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of theft and one count of robbery. He was originally charged with three counts of robbery, but on two of the counts was found guilty of the lesser offense of theft. On appeal, he argues that one of his convictions and sentences for theft should be reversed. We agree.
The record indicates that appellant was originally accused of the robbery of three separate victims. However, when the information was filed, Counts II and III contained identical language charging appellant with the robbery of only one victim, Jose Velasquez. Since there is nothing to distinguish the two counts, and the information was never amended either orally or in writing, appellant has essentially been convicted and sentenced twice for the same offense in violation of his right against double jeopardy. See Miles v. State, 418 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
We therefore affirm appellant's conviction and sentence as to Count II. In regard to Count III, we reverse his conviction and vacate his sentence. The robbery conviction in Count IV is affirmed.

THREADGILL and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Contact Info

Do you need a lawyer or you have a question about our law firm?

Call us:
1.850.681.1010
Email us: