Opinion ID: 1678476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: T. v. State

Text: In N.T., the child was placed on community control for the commission of grand theft. When N.T. violated the conditions of a second community control order, he was successfully prosecuted both for a violation of community control and for indirect criminal contempt. On appeal, the issue was framed as whether N.T.'s prosecution for both violation of community control and indirect criminal contempt violated his constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. N.T., 682 So.2d at 689. The Fifth District agreed with N.T. and, applying the same elements test, [1] the court explained that where two prosecutions are based on the same conduct and the prosecutions contain the same elements, double jeopardy bars the successive prosecution. Citing State v. Woodland, 602 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and other cases, the Fifth District found the contempt charge to have been subsumed within the violation of community control, thus precluding an additional prosecution for criminal contempt. See id. at 689-90.