JAMES DANIEL KASPER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case addresses whether prosecuting an individual under state law after a federal conviction for the same conduct violates double jeopardy. The court affirmed the state conviction, upholding the "dual-sovereignty" doctrine.
No, prosecuting an individual under state law after a federal conviction for the same conduct does not violate the double jeopardy clause. The "dual-sovereignty" doctrine permits separate prosecutions by state and federal governments.
[1] The dual-sovereignty doctrine permits separate prosecutions by federal and state governments for the same criminal act without violating double jeopardy protections.
[2] An act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“under what is referred to as the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, an act that constitutes a crime under both federal and state law can be separately prosecuted by both sovereigns without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy because the offenses are separate.”
Explains the dual-sovereignty doctrine and its application to double jeopardy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Daniel Kasper pleaded guilty to a state charge of lewd or lascivious molestation. He argued that this conviction violated double jeopardy becaus…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9 cases and more on FLexlaw
LAMBERT, J.
James Daniel Kasper appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court following his open, guilty plea to one count of committing lewd or lascivious molestation upon a person under the age of twelve years by a person over the age of eighteen years. His sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in denying his
dispositive motion to dismiss the information on double jeopardy grounds because his present conviction and sentence are based upon the same conduct for which Kasper was separately punished in an earlier federal court case, where Kasper pleaded guilty and received a lengthy prison sentence.1 We affirm.
The double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provide that no person may be “twice put in jeopardy” for the same “offense.” However, under what is referred to as the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, an act that constitutes a crime under both federal and state law can be separately prosecuted by both sovereigns without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy because the offenses are separate. See United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922) (“[A]n act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.”).
Here, the trial court denied Kasper’s motion to dismiss based on Booth v. State, 436 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1983). In Booth, the Florida Supreme Court adhered to the aforementioned doctrine of dual sovereignty, concluding that there was no double jeopardy violation by the State prosecuting the defendant on criminal charges arising out of a drug transaction following a federal prosecution pertaining to the same drugs and transaction. Id. at 37. Kasper candidly acknowledges that Booth is controlling but argues that during its most recent term, the United States Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of a case to consider and address the continuing viability of the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
Kasper is correct; however, in Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019), the Court specifically declined to overturn the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
Accordingly, because the trial court correctly concluded that there was no double jeopardy violation, we affirm Kasper’s judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, C.J., and BERGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1922)
- Terance Martez Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (U.S. 2019)
- Booth v. State, 436 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1983)