Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1953 |
| Citation | 69 So.2d 766 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Sam E. Murrell and Sam E. Murrell, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Mark R. Howes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Robert Williams was tried before a jury in the Criminal court of Record of Polk County, Florida, with one Lorus Argie Young, a codefendant, and was found guilty on all six counts of an information charging offenses involving the lottery laws.
This appeal involves only the defendant Williams, the appellant here.
The six counts charged in substance that appellant, on April 19, 1952, and at divers times between April 1 and April 20, 1952, unlawfully did: 1. Conspire to set up a lottery; 2. promote a lottery; 3. sell lottery shares; 4. conduct a lottery; 5. have an interest in a lottery by 'having in his possession certain books, records and accounts containing and showing the shares and interests sold' by appellant; 6. have possession of lottery tickets.
Upon the jury verdict of guilty, the court imposed six concurrent one-year sentences, in the county jail on counts 1, 3 and 6, and in the state prison on counts 2, 4 and 6, with no judgment and sentence imposed on count 5.
Where a defendant is convicted under the lottery laws, Section 849.09, F.S., as amended by Chapter 26765, Section 1, Laws of Florida 1951, F.S.A. § 849.09, on two or more counts involving both misdemeanors and felonies, only one sentence is applicable, that sentence being on the highest degree of the offense. Mixon v. State, Fla., 1951, 54 So.2d 190. The trial court did not follow that rule in the several concurrent sentences imposed; but, inasmuch as the instant judgments and sentences on counts 1, 3 and 6 pertain to misdemeanors, appellate jurisdiction lies only to the Circuit Court of Polk County, Florida; and this Court therefore has no jurisdiction to review them, Sections 5 and 11, Article 5, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.; Section 924.08, F.S.1951, F.S.A., except to order a proper judgment or sentence by reason of the fact that misdemeanors and felonies are charged in different counts of the same information charging variations of only one offense. The three one-year sentences imposed in the state prison should be set aside and one sentence for one year in the state prison should be imposed for the highest offense. Young v. State, opinion filed, Fla., 69 So.2d 761, and authorities therein cited.
On count 6 the court imposed duplicate sentences. Obviously, the one year sentence in the state prison on count 6, a misdemeanor, is void, and we so hold. Mixon v. State, supra.
Why the court imposed no judgment or sentence with reference to the jury verdict of guilty as to count 5 does not appear from the record. In any event, trial court action on count 5 is not before us on this appeal.
Counts 2 and 4 remain for consideration. Count 2 in substance alleges that on April 19, 1952, and at divers other times between April 1 and 20, 1952, the appellant unlawfully did 'set up and promote a lottery * * *.' Count 4 is in substance the same, except it is alleged that appellant at said times unlawfully did 'conduct a lottery for money, and by means of a lottery did dispose of money; * * *.' The counts obviously were drawn under F.S.1951, Section 849.09(1), subparagraphs (a) and (b), respectively, F.S.A.; and these counts charge variations of but one offense. Mixon v. State, supra.
Appellant here questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction on counts 2 and 4. Appellant's codefendant at the trial, Lorus Argie Young, took a separate appeal. The pertinent facts of the instant case are set forth fully in the opinion rendered in the companion appeal in Young v. State, Fla.1953, supra.
If it was properly before the jury, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmond v. State
...Case No. 42,760, filed March 9, 1973; Norwood v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 427; Wheeler v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 364; Williams v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 766; Young v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 761; Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190; Washington v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 137, 40 So.......
-
Paramore v. State, 37178
...a reversal. See Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689 (1927); Gurr v. State, 150 Fla. 65, 7 So.2d 590 (1942); Williams v. State, 69 So.2d 766 (Fla.1953); Robles v. State, 210 So.2d 441 Reprimands, in order to constitute reversible error, must prejudice the party whose counsel was reb......
-
Jenkins v. Wainwright
...the single transaction rule. E.g., Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973); Cone v. State, 285 So.2d 12 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 69 So.2d 766 (Fla.1954). It is the respondent's position that the trial court's action in imposing two consecutive sentences is sustained by Parker v. Sta......
-
Orange v. State, 75--1175
...of the lottery law which were regarded to be facets of one transaction. See Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190; Williams v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 766; Wheeler v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 364; Norwood v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 427; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 630; Sh......