Opinion ID: 1768658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prior double jeopardy caselaw

Text: The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the state and federal constitutions protects criminal defendants from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense. [1] The prevailing standard for 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. M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.1996); see State v. Anderson, 695 So.2d 309, 311 (Fla.1997) (Legislative intent is the polestar that guides our analysis in double jeopardy issues....). Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger [2] test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), to determine whether separate offenses exist. See Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.1996) ([A]bsent an explicit statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, application of the Blockburger `same-elements' test pursuant to section 775.021(4) ... is the sole method of determining whether multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.) (footnote omitted). Section 775.021 provides: (4)(a) 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; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. 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. (b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are: 1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof. 2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. 3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. § 775.021, Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, the Blockburger test, or same-elements test, inquires whether each offense has an element that the other does not. See State v. Craft, 685 So.2d 1292 (Fla.1996); Richardson v. Lewis, 639 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). If so, then they are considered separate offenses, and the defendant may be convicted and punished for each offense. Several cases have involved a straightforward application of this statute, that is, examining the statutory elements of each offense to determine whether the offenses may be considered separate. See Gaber, 684 So.2d at 189-90; Johnson v. State, 689 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1997) (holding that armed trespass and grand theft convictions did not constitute double jeopardy); State v. Maxwell, 682 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla.1996); State v. Johnson, 676 So.2d 408, 409-10 (Fla.1996); Jones v. State, 608 So.2d 797 (Fla.1992); McAllister v. State, 718 So.2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Billups v. State, 690 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hamrick v. State, 648 So.2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (discussing legislative intent to punish multiple offenses resulting from a single act). The application of the statutory exceptions, however, is more complex. At issue in the present case is the construction of the second exceptionoffenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. [3] We addressed varying degrees of crimes in Johnson v. State, 597 So.2d 798 (Fla.1992). In that case, the defendant was convicted of both grand theft of property and grand theft of a firearm for snatching a purse containing both cash and a firearm. See id. at 799. We concluded that the value of the goods or the taking of a firearm merely defined the degree of the felony and did not constitute separate crimes. See id. In State v. Thompson, 607 So.2d 422 (Fla.1992), we adopted the lower court's opinion, holding that dual convictions for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance and felony petit theft were impermissible. Relying on Johnson and Thompson, we held in Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994), that convictions for both grand theft of an automobile and robbery with a weapon constituted double jeopardy. In so holding, we reasoned that these offenses were aggravated forms of the same underlying offense distinguished only by degree factors. Id. at 154. Consequently, the defendant's dual convictions based on the same core offense [could not] stand. Id. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kogan interpreted the second statutory exception as prohibiting multiple convictions for certain core offenses which were distinguishable only by degree. See id. at 155-56 (Kogan, J., concurring). In a dissenting opinion, Justice Grimes noted that the crimes were entirely separate, and the effect of the majority decision was to reinvigorate the Carawan analysis. See id. at 156-57 (Grimes, J., dissenting). We reaffirmed Sirmons in Goodwin v. State, 634 So.2d 157 (Fla.1994), where we held that dual convictions for UBAL (unlawful blood alcohol level) manslaughter and vehicular homicide arising out of one death violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. We concluded that these two offenses were aggravated forms of a single underlying offense distinguished only by degree factors. Id. at 157. In a similar vein, in State v. Anderson, 695 So.2d 309 (Fla.1997), we held that the double jeopardy clause prohibited multiple convictions for perjury in an official proceeding and providing false information in an application for bail when the charges arose out of a single act. We concluded that [b]oth statutes punish the same basic crime (i.e., the violation of a legal obligation to tell the truth), and differ only in terms of the degree of violation. Id. at 311. Likewise, in Khan v. State, 704 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the Fourth District held that dual convictions for interfering with custody of a child and removing a minor from the state contrary to a court order were impermissible. The court reasoned that [b]oth statutes punish the same basic crime and differ only in terms of the degree of the violation. Id. The court further noted, Because both offenses seek to punish the same underlying act, appellant's dual convictions cannot stand. Id. Thus, our construction of the second exception indicates that a two-step inquiry is required: whether the crimes constitute separate offenses under Blockburger, as codified in section 775.021(4)(a), and whether the crimes are degree variants or aggravated forms of the same core offense.