Johnson v. State, 89-3288

• Decision Date: 31 January 1991
• Docket Number: No. 89-3288,89-3288
• Citation: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 385,574 So.2d 242
• Parties: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 385 Raymond JOHNSON, a/k/a Bobby Rutledge, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 242

574 So.2d 242

16 Fla. L. Weekly 385

Raymond JOHNSON, a/k/a Bobby Rutledge, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 89-3288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 31, 1991.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1991.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County; Robert P. Cates, Judge.

Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender and Lynn A. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Charlie McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises, among other issues, a double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions and sentences for grand theft of property between $300 and $20,000 and of a firearm for his single act of purse snatching. See Sections 812.014(2)(c) 1. and 3., Florida Statutes (1987). Since this act occurred after the amendment to the rule of lenity became effective (see Section 775.021, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988)), we AFFIRM as to this point. See Davis v. State, 560 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 568 So.2d 435 (Fla.1990); Porterfield v. State, 567 So.2d 429, 430 n. 2 (Fla.1990); State v. Hatten, 560 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1990); State v. Burton, 555 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1990); St. Fabre v. State, 548 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989). However, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:

WHEN A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION IS ALLEGED BASED ON THE CRIMES OF GRAND THEFT OF PROPERTY (BETWEEN $300 AND $20,000) AND OF A FIREARM IN A SINGLE ACT, AND THE CRIMES OCCURRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTION 775.021, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), IS IT UNLAWFUL TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE FOR BOTH CRIMES?

We find that the remaining issues lack merit and AFFIRM them as well.

BOOTH, WENTWORTH and MINER, JJ., concur.