Court Opinion

ID: 9879136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:59:12.601549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:46.258549
License: Public Domain

SILBERMAN, Judge, Concurring, I fully agree with' Judge Badalamenti’s thorough analysis and resolution of each of the double jeopardy pairings. I write to note two points. First, as to footnote six of the majority opinion, I do not read Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009), as casting doubt on the continued viability of the single homicide rule. Second, although McCullough’s appellate argument for-reversal focused primarily on the single homicide rule, the State argued for affir-mance based on. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). In light of our conclusion that McCullough is entitled to relief under the single homicide rule, we need not address the State’s Blockburger argument. However, if we were to reach that issue I would agree with Judge Sleet that as to the pairing of vehicular homicide and fleeing or eluding causing serious bodily injury or death, a Blockburger analysis would not support affirmance.