Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

689 So. 2d 1066

689 So.2d 1066

22 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 128

State v. Hunter

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 13, 1997

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1997-03-13

Relies on 684 So. 2d 189 - Gaber v. State · 664 So. 2d 242 - State v. Eversole · Marrow v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-03-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Esfeld v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A. (2002), 691 So. 2d 1180 - Davis v. State (1997)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions

540199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WELLS, Justice.

¶1We have for review Hunter v. State, 685 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), which addresses the same issue which we recently resolved in Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189 (Fla.1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

¶2In Hunter, the defendant was convicted at trial of, among other charges, two counts of armed burglary, section 810.02(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), and one count of grand theft of a firearm, section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), for events arising from the same criminal episode. On appeal to the Second District, the court relied on Marrow v. State, 656 So.2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 664 So.2d 249 (Fla.1995), and found that double jeopardy precluded the conviction for both charges where the act of stealing a firearm converted the burglary into an armed burglary. Hunter, 685 So.2d at 1332. Consequently, the court vacated the conviction for grand theft of a firearm.

¶3In Gaber, we confronted the same issue as Hunterbut resolved the issue to the contrary. There, we disapproved Marrowand held that double jeopardy does not preclude separate convictions because grand theft and armed burglary have separate statutory elements. Gaber. In accordance with our decision in Gaber, we quash the district court’s decision in this case and remand with directions that the defendant’s conviction for grand theft of a firearm be affirmed.1

¶4It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur.

¶5. Since the other issues addressed by the district court are not before us, we do not address them. Further, we decline to address the other issues raised by the respondent.

/689/so2d/1066 · .json · Public domain