From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vega-Vazquez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 9, 2000
760 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 2D98-4424.

Opinion filed June 9, 2000.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Fleischer, Judge.

Jose C. Gonzalez, Tampa, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Arnaldo Vega-Vazquez raises numerous issues in this appeal from his convictions for manslaughter and vehicular homicide. We find only one contention meritorious, which we discuss below. As to the remaining issues, we affirm.

Mr. Vega-Vazquez contends that because only one death resulted from his operation of a motor vehicle, he cannot be adjudicated guilty of both manslaughter and vehicular homicide. The State, citing State v. Chapman, 625 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1993), does not take issue with this contention. In Chapman, the supreme court held a single death cannot support convictions for both manslaughter by driving while under the influence and vehicular homicide. See also State v. Cooper, 634 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1994). Accordingly, the vehicular homicide conviction cannot stand.

We affirm his manslaughter conviction, reverse the vehicular homicide conviction, and remand with instructions for the circuit court to strike the latter. Because Mr. Vega-Vazquez was not sentenced for vehicular homicide, nor was it included on his guidelines scoresheet, we affirm his sentence.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Vega-Vazquez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 9, 2000
760 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Vega-Vazquez v. State

Case Details

Full title:ARNALDO VEGA-VAZQUEZ, Appellant v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 9, 2000

Citations

760 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Holmes v. State

Because Appellant was not sentenced for vehicular homicide and that conviction is not included on his…