Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): without comment. We reverse the denial of claim eight and remand for further proceedings. Nesbitt entered an open plea of guilty to two counts of armed robbery and one count of armed burglary of a conveyance. In claim eight, Nesbitt claims that his two convictions for armed robbery violate his constitutional protection from double jeopardy because they occurred during the same criminal episode and the State charged him with taking the same item — a purse and its contents — in each. In summarily denying the claim, the postconviction court attached a copy of the felony information and found that the convictions did not violate the protection from double jeopardy because each charge of armed robbery identified a different victim. See Hillman v. State, 410 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms (B) holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case (C) holding that two distinct acts of assault with a deadly weapon taking place within a fifteen minute period were a part of the same incident and they could not reasonably be held to constitute two separate offenses each complete in itself and each of which would require a separate charge (D) holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment (E) holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction
Output (English): holding that two distinct acts of assault with a deadly weapon taking place within a fifteen minute period were a part of the same incident and they could not reasonably be held to constitute two separate offenses each complete in itself and each of which would require a separate charge