Legal Opinion

Tambriz-Ramirez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 1, 2017No. 4D15-2957PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Because our rationale for affirmance differs from that of the trial court, we write to explain why appellant’s double jeopardy claim lacks merit. We certify conflict with decisions of the First and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, which have found a double jeopardy violation where a defendant is convicted of burglary with an assault and aggravated assault committed in the same episode.

Background

The following summary of the evidence is derived from appellant’s direct appeal, which was reversed in part for…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Valdes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2009
  2. State v. McCloudSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
  3. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
  4. State v. ReardonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  5. James Houston Roughton v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2016

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Diego Tambriz-Ramirez v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2018
  2. ANTHONY TAYLOR v. STATE OF FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  3. Diego Tambriz-Ramirez v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2018
  4. State of Florida v. Jose Maisonet-MaldonadoSupreme Court of Florida · 2020
  5. Taylor v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API