IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ANTHONY DOYLE, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D17-686

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 23, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County, 

Debra S. Nelson, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, 

and Glendon George Gordon, Jr, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

Anthony Doyle appeals his convictions and sentences for extortion under section 

836.05, Florida Statutes (2015), and written threats to kill or do bodily injury under section 

836.10, Florida Statutes (2015), arguing that the dual convictions violate double jeopardy. 

We agree and therefore reverse and remand for resentencing. 
2

The evidence adduced at trial was that Doyle sent a handwritten letter to his pastor, 

threatening “a slow and painful death” for the pastor’s children and their families if the 

pastor failed to deliver $15,000 to Doyle or if he notified the police. Doyle claimed that he 

also received a letter, which he showed to the pastor, stating that the pastor had a 

package that Doyle was to pick up and take to the alleged extorters, or they would kill 

Doyle’s parents and wife.

Doyle became the subject of the police investigation because the two letters 

contained the same handwriting and matched the handwriting in a written statement 

Doyle had provided the police in an unrelated case.1 The jury returned a guilty verdict on 

both charges. Doyle was sentenced to five years’ incarceration on each charge, with each 

sentence to run concurrently, followed by ten years of probation. The sole issue on appeal 

is whether double jeopardy precluded convictions on both charges.

Section 836.05, “Threats; extortion,” provides:

Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed 

communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of 

any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously 

threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of 

another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to 

disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to 

impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent 

thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage 

whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so 

threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from 

doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony 

of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, 

s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

§ 836.05, Fla. Stat. (2015). 

Section 836.10, “Written threats to kill or do bodily injury; punishment,” provides:

 1 The handwriting also matched writing samples Doyle provided in the instant case.
3

Any person who writes or composes and also sends or 

procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, 

or electronic communication, whether such letter or 

communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, 

containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to 

whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill 

or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person 

to whom such letter or communication is sent commits a 

felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 

775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

§ 836.10, Fla. Stat. (2015). 

Doyle argues that the elements of the two offenses are inseparable and that a 

conviction for written threats under section 836.10 does not include any additional 

elements not included for an extortion conviction under section 836.05. Alternatively, he 

suggests that even if the crimes contain different elements, a conviction for written threats 

under section 836.10 is necessarily subsumed by an extortion conviction under section 

836.05. The State responds that each offense contains a different element; extortion 

includes malice, intent, and several different types of threats, while written threats to kill 

or do bodily harm contains the elements of sending the communication as well as that the 

threat could be to a family member.2

“A double jeopardy claim based upon undisputed facts presents a pure question 

of law and is reviewed de novo.” State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261, 268 (Fla. 2011) (quoting 

Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 2006)). “The prevailing standard for 

 2 The State also argues that Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016), 

controls in this case and that dual convictions under sections 836.05 and 836.10 do not 

violate double jeopardy based on the alternative conduct proscribed by each statute. This 

argument lacks merit. In Roughton, the court explicitly found that both lewd or lascivious 

molestation and sexual battery contain a different element that the other does not, based 

on the alternative conduct proscribed by each statute. 185 So. 3d at 1210. As explained 

below, however, section 836.10 does not contain any element not found in section 

836.05. 
4

determining the constitutionality of multiple convictions for offenses arising from the same 

criminal transaction is whether the Legislature ‘intended to authorize separate 

punishments for the two crimes.’” Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 2009)

(quoting M.P. v. State, 682 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996)).

Double jeopardy is governed by section 775.021, Florida Statutes, which codified 

the Blockburger3 “same elements” test. It provides: 

Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, 

commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate 

criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, 

shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense . . . . 

For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if 

each offense requires proof of an element that the other does 

not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof 

adduced at trial.

§ 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added).

“Under the basic rule of Blockburger and section 775.021(4)(a), if ‘each offense 

requires proof of an element that the other does not,’ separate punishments for each 

offense do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.” Roughton v. State, 185 

So. 3d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 2016). Courts analyze only the statutory elements of each offense 

and do not assess the evidence or the facts as alleged in the information. State v. 

Carpenter, 417 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1982).

There is no dispute that Doyle’s offenses occurred “in the course of one criminal 

transaction.” See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The essential elements of each offense as 

compared to the other are as follows: 

 3 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).
5

Extortion—Section 836.05 Written Threats to Kill or Do 

Bodily Injury—Section 836.10

(1) the defendant made a written, printed, or verbal 

communication of a threat to another

(1) a person writes or composes a 

communication containing a threat, 

and sends or procures sending of 

that communication, 

(2) in the communication, the defendant threatened to:

 (a) accuse another of a crime;

 (b) injure another person;

 (c) injure another’s property or reputation;

 (d) expose another person to disgrace;

 (e) expose a secret; or

 (f) impute deformity or lack of chastity

(2) threatening to kill or do bodily 

injury

(3) to the recipient of the threat or a 

member of his or her family.

(3) the threat was made maliciously n/a 

(4) the threat was made with the intent to:

 (a) extort money or pecuniary advantage

 (b) compel a person to do any act or refrain 

from doing an act against his/her will. 

n/a 

Thus, extortion under section 836.05 may be committed by issuing a written threat 

to commit bodily harm on another, which encompasses all of the required elements of 

section 836.10—a written threat to kill or do bodily injury on the person threatened or a 

family member. The elements of extortion differ in that there must be malice as well as 

an intent to extort money or compel a person into action or inaction. But a conviction for 

written threats to kill or do bodily injury contains no further requirements. 

The State’s contention that the elements are different because the written threat 

under section 836.10 may be directed toward a family member is unpersuasive. Under 

the second element of extortion (as listed above), extortion may be committed by 

threatening to injure another person. See § 836.05, Fla. Stat. This is broad enough to 

encompass the third element required for written threats to kill or do bodily injury that the 

threat of injury is to the person receiving the threat or a member of his or her family. See

id. § 836.10. A conviction for written threats under section 836.10 does not have any 
6

additional elements not contained in section 836.05. Therefore, dual convictions on both 

charges, arising out of the same criminal transaction, violate double jeopardy. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

COHEN, C.J., SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.