STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL CRISEL, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that had vacated a defendant's possession conviction based on double jeopardy concerns. The Court held that when analyzing whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy under Florida Statute section 775.021(4)(b), courts must examine only the formal charges and required elements, not the facts of the case.
Courts are restricted to examining only the charges and their required elements, without regard to the facts of the case or the evidence presented at trial. The statute precludes examining evidence to determine whether the defendant possessed and sold the same quantum of drugs.
[1] When determining a double jeopardy issue under section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), courts are restricted to examining only the formal charges, not the fa…
[2] Offenses are considered separate for double jeopardy purposes if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, irrespective of the accusatory pleadin…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“section 775.021(4)(a) specifically states that "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."”
Establishes that the statute requires element-based analysis only, explicitly precluding examination of evidence or facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrisel was convicted of sale of marijuana and cocaine, and separately convicted of possession of the same marijuana and cocaine. The district court af…
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 Elements Of An Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state of Florida seeks review of Crisel v. State, 561 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in which the district court affirmed Crisel’s conviction for the sale of marijuana and cocaine, but vacated Crisel’s conviction and sentence for possession of the same quantum of marijuana and cocaine on the authority of V.A.A. v. State, 561 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), approved in part, quashed in part, 577 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1991). The district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
WHEN DECIDING A DOUBLE JEOPARDY ISSUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.021(4)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), IS THE TRIAL OR APPELLATE COURT PERMITTED TO EXAMINE THE FORMAL CHARGES OR THE FACTS OF THE CASE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION?
Crisel, 561 So. 2d at 457. We rephrase the question as follows:
When deciding a double jeopardy issue pursuant to section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), is the trial or appellate court restricted to examining only the charges?
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, and have recently answered this question in the affirmative in State v. McCloud, 577 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1991) and State v. V.A.A., 577 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1991).
In McCloud, 577 So. 2d at 941, we stated that
section 775.021(4)(a) specifically states that “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.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, section 775.021(4)(a) precludes the court from examining the evidence to determine whether the defendant possessed and sold the same quantum of cocaine such that possession is a lesser-included offense of sale in any one case.
Applying McCloud to Crisel’s case, the court should examine only the elements charged rather than the facts in determining whether double jeopardy is involved. In accordance with McCloud and V.A.A., we quash that part of the district court’s decision vacating Crisel’s conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana and cocaine. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. McCLOUD, 577 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1991)
- V.A.A. v. State, 561 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. V.A.A., 577 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1991)
- Crisel v. State, 561 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)