Psychology
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX | Jurisdiction Case Review | Lauren Crider | | JON PALADINI | 7/8/2012 |
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] |
Cruller v. Florida
Cruller v. Florida is a case that arose as a function of the Florida state court system. The case was presented to the Florida Supreme Court on a certified question to resolve a case law conflict between sister courts of different appellate districts. The case initially arose from a violation two state criminal statutes, armed robbery and car-jacking The defendant /appellant appealed his conviction to the Third District Court of appeals in Florida on the basis that a conviction of armed robbery and carjacking under the same factual predicate amounted a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution.
The Cruller appellate court held that the defendant 's conviction of both offenses did not constitute double jeopardy, a holding that was inapposite to the holding of its sister court in the in the First District.
While the basis for the appeal in Cruller is a violation of double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the United
States Constitution, the individual states have enacted anti-double jeopardy statutes. In the Cruller case, the statute in question is section 775 .012 of the Florida Statutes, which represents the Florida codification of the double jeopardy clause
The original venue for the case was a criminal trial court in the state of Florida, which convicted Cruller.
Cruller then appealed, which transferred jurisdiction and venue to the Third District Court of Appeals in
Florida. In the appeals the First District reversed Ward’s armed carjacking conviction, concluding that “there was only one ‘forceful talking’. Florida statues for determining
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] |
Cruller v. Florida
Cruller v. Florida is a case that arose as a function of the Florida state court system. The case was presented to the Florida Supreme Court on a certified question to resolve a case law conflict between sister courts of different appellate districts. The case initially arose from a violation two state criminal statutes, armed robbery and car-jacking The defendant /appellant appealed his conviction to the Third District Court of appeals in Florida on the basis that a conviction of armed robbery and carjacking under the same factual predicate amounted a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution.
The Cruller appellate court held that the defendant 's conviction of both offenses did not constitute double jeopardy, a holding that was inapposite to the holding of its sister court in the in the First District.
While the basis for the appeal in Cruller is a violation of double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the United
States Constitution, the individual states have enacted anti-double jeopardy statutes. In the Cruller case, the statute in question is section 775 .012 of the Florida Statutes, which represents the Florida codification of the double jeopardy clause
The original venue for the case was a criminal trial court in the state of Florida, which convicted Cruller.
Cruller then appealed, which transferred jurisdiction and venue to the Third District Court of Appeals in
Florida. In the appeals the First District reversed Ward’s armed carjacking conviction, concluding that “there was only one ‘forceful talking’. Florida statues for determining