From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dunsford

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 7, 1994
634 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Summary

applying Blockburger test retroactively

Summary of this case from State v. Murray

Opinion

No. 92-2857.

April 7, 1994.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County; Paul A. Rasmussen, Judge.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Faye A. Boyce, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellee.


We reverse the order dismissing the information. Under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), there was no double jeopardy violation.

We acknowledge that United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), which changed the law in this area, had not been issued at the time the trial court decided the case at bar and relied on the Court's earlier contradictory decision in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990).

REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

ERVIN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Dunsford

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 7, 1994
634 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

applying Blockburger test retroactively

Summary of this case from State v. Murray
Case details for

State v. Dunsford

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. JOYCE DUNSFORD, A/K/A JOYCE WRIGHT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Apr 7, 1994

Citations

634 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

State v. Murray

Because this case is currently on direct appeal, there is no reason why Dixon should not be applied…

State v. Gregory

We agree. See State v. Murray, 644 So.2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ("[b]ecause this case is currently on…