Perez v. State, 2D05-2245.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-2245.,2D05-2245. |
| Citation | 951 So.2d 859 |
| Parties | James PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deana K. Marshall, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
James Perez appeals his judgments and sentences for armed home invasion robbery, armed burglary, and false impersonation of a law enforcement officer during the commission of a felony. Mr. Perez committed all three offenses on September 26, 2003, during a single criminal episode. The trial court sentenced Mr. Perez to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the home invasion robbery and the armed burglary and to another concurrent term of fifteen years' imprisonment for the false impersonation offense. Although it may have little practical effect, we must reverse the judgment and sentence for armed burglary because it either violates double jeopardy under article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution, or contravenes section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
It has been held that convictions arising from a single episode for home invasion robbery and burglary violate either double jeopardy or section 775.021(4)(b)(3). See, e.g., Mendez v. State, 798 So.2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (); Barboza v. State, 786 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (); Weiss v. State, 720 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (); Black v. State, 677 So.2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ().
The State persuasively argues that the burglary was complete at the moment Mr. Perez entered the home and that the robbery was a separate offense occurring at least a few seconds later inside the home. Accordingly, the State maintains that convictions for the two offenses are permissible under section 775.021. Although such an analysis has been accepted for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lusca v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...478 (2000). DONE and ORDERED. 22 --------- Notes: [1] The information did not charge Lusca with home invasion robbery. Perez v. State, 951 So.2d 859, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“It has been held that convictions arising from a single episode for home invasion robbery and burglary violate eithe......
-
Tuttle v. State
...at 544. In reaching this conclusion, this court relied on two of its earlier cases which reached the same conclusion: Perez v. State, 951 So.2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Coleman v. State, 956 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), as well as the Fifth District'sdecision in McAllister, 718 So.2d a......
-
Schulterbrandt v. State
...armed home-invasion robbery violated double jeopardy because they arose from the same criminal episode. We agree. In Perez v. State, 951 So.2d 859, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), we vacated a conviction for armed burglary on double jeopardy grounds, finding the offense "subsumed by the greater off......
-
Coleman v. State
...assault or battery cannot stand because of the prohibition against double jeopardy. Further, this court's decision in Perez v. State, 951 So.2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), precludes upholding Coleman's convictions and sentences for both home-invasion robbery and armed burglary of a dwelling. Du......