a case that is 511 southern second, 401 and that was out of the fifth dca. that's a 1987 case. and woe also provided the court with burke v. state. 475 southern second 252 and that's a 1985 case. it's our assertion that the hamill case is similar in that it touches on the temporal aspects present in this case as well. however, the hug decision, the double jeopardy was invoked when the defendant was convicted of five incidences of leaving one scene because there were five people in particular who were left at the scene of an accident. burke on the other hand is a case that's invoked a double jeopardy where there were three convictions of the defendant based on one transaction of three altered bills. and those convictions were charged separately. however, because they were found to be one act, double jeopardy was violated in this case as well. your honor, in order to avoid a legal sentence, we respectfully request that the court sentence miss anthony only for one occurrence, one count of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. further, we reassert that there is

provided the court with two other cases, that is 511 southern 2nd, 401, and that was out of the 5th dca, 1987 case. and we also provided the court with burke v state, 475 southern 2nd, 252, 1985 case. it's our assertion the hamill case is similar in that touches on the aspects that are present in this case as well. however, the double jeopardy was invoked when the defendant was convicted of five incidents of leaving one scene, because there were five people in particular who were left at the scene of an accident. burke, on the other hand, is a case that invokes both double jeopardy, based on three transactions of three altered bills and the convictions were charged separately. however, because they are found to be one act, double jeopardy was violated in this case. your honor, in order to avoid an illegal sentence, we request the court sentence miss anthony for one count of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. >> okay. as they deal with some of those legal issues there, we are going to take a break and we'll come back to this proceeding as it's taking place in orlan

dca is reporting delay because of air traffic management issues.k in a moment to take a look at the local accuweather seven-day forecast. abc 7 news -dad, why e you getting that? -that's my cereal. is there a prize in there? oh, there's prize, all right. is it a robot? no. is it a jet plane? nope. is it a dinosaur? [ laughs ] [ male announcer ] inside every box of heart healthy cheerios are the great tasting little o's made from carefully selected oats that can help lower cholesterol. stickers? uh-uh. a perhero? ♪ kinda. [ male announcer ] and we think that's the best prize of all. ♪ >>> job market may seem staggant, but a job fair gave job seekers a chance owe shake hands with perspective employers. there are 250 positions open that need to be filled and there is a chance to apply for the job autos you can go to virtual and apply with company that's are here. it will link to their web site, however they want to you apply. >> and that web site is jobs journal.com. the next job journal hire event takes place august 10th from noon until 4:00 at doubl

in hammill versus state, 934, 634, a florida second dca case from 2006 the defendant was convicted of 15 counts of using a computer to seduce a child, at issue was whether counts five and six among other things arose from a single criminal episode, in hammill the court articulated the test to determine whether offenses arise from a single criminal episode. in that test, the court articulated that -- >> ms. fry, let me stop you for a second. >> yes, your honor. >> i don't seem to have anything of what you said you provided the court. >> i apologize, your honor. i gave that to the clerk and i should have instructed that you needed to have that. >> okay. okay, go ahead. >> thank you your honor. this test requires the court to look to whether there was a separation of time, place or circumstances between the crime, because that sets objective criteria utilized to determine whether there are distinct and criminal acts or one continuous act with a single criminal intent. the court went on to say that the aspects of the crime, looking at that criteria, is court cannot attain whether the defe

another case that is 511 southern 2nd 401 and that was out of the fifth dca, 1987 case. we provided the court with a case 475 southern 2nd 252 an 1985 case. it's our assertion that that the hamel case is similar in that it touches on the temporal aspects in this case as well but the hug decision, the double jeopardy was invoked when the defendant was convicted of five incidences of leaving one scene because they were -- there were five people in particular who were left at the scene of an accident. burke, on the other hand, is a case that is invocket double jeopardy where three convictions of the defendant based on one transaction of three altered bills and this convictions were charged separately. however, because they were found to be one act, double jeopardy was violated in this case. your honor, in order to avoid a legal sentence, we respectfully request that the court sentence miss anthony for one count of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. further, we reassert that there is at issue materiality in these charges and should be read into the sta

provided the the court with two other cases that is 511 southern second 401 and that was out of the fifth dca, a 1987 case, and we provided the court with berk versus state, 252, that's 1985 case. it's our assertion that the hamill case is similar in that it touches on the temporal aspects present in this case as well. and however, the double jeopardy was invoked when the defendant was convicted of five incidents of leaving one scene because there were five people who were left at the scene of an accident. berk on the other hand invokes the double jeopardy where there were three convictions of the defendant based on one transaction and the defendant was charged separately. because they were found to be one act, double jeopardy was violated in this case. your honor, in order to avoid a legal -- we request that the court sentence miss anthony only for one occurrence, one count of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. further we reassert that there is an issue of materiality in these charges and should be read into the statute as legislative intent. thank you very much. >> ju