Case Name: Michael Maurice ARCHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-02-03
Citations: 922 So. 2d 1007
Docket Number: No. 1D04-2701
Parties: Michael Maurice ARCHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 922
Pages: 1007–1008

Head Matter:
Michael Maurice ARCHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D04-2701.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 3, 2006.
Rehearing Denied March 9, 2006.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant, and Appellant, pro se.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Archie appeals from a sentence imposed for violation of probation, com plaining that the lower court violated his constitutional right not to be placed in jeopardy for the same offenses by setting aside a valid jury verdict and accepting his pleas to lesser offenses, which led to the sentences he now appeals. We disagree and affirm.
Following the jury's return of inconsistent verdicts for the offenses of felony murder with the underlying felony being robbery, and the lesser offense of petit theft to that of robbery, the lower court, before accepting the verdicts, asked the parties if they could resolve the dilemma without the necessity of a new trial. Appellant thereafter entered pleas of nolo contendere to the lesser offense of manslaughter as to the murder offense and to robbery as charged, and received a sentence imposing a period of incarceration followed by probation. The appellant was subsequently released from prison and commenced probation, which he violated and the present sentence was imposed, leading to his double jeopardy complaint.
What appellant apparently overlooks is that the lower court never accepted the verdicts returned by the jury; hence the finality required for the application of double jeopardy never arose. See Pruitt v. State, 830 So.2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.