MAX MICHAEL PRUETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Max Pruett appealed his convictions for simple battery and battery upon a person 65 years or older, arising from a single altercation. The court reversed his simple battery conviction as violating double jeopardy principles, while affirming his conviction for battery on an elderly person.
The court reversed the simple battery conviction, holding that a defendant cannot be convicted of both simple battery and battery on a person 65 years of age or older when both convictions arise from the same facts, as this violates double jeopardy principles prohibiting punishment twice for the same offense.
[1] A conviction for simple battery and battery upon a person 65 years of age or older arising from the same factual event violates double jeopardy principles.
[2] A double jeopardy violation constitutes fundamental error cognizable on direct appeal, even if not raised in the trial court.
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“appellant's conviction for simple battery constituted a second conviction for the same substantive offense contrary to the double jeopardy prohibition which precludes a defendant from being punished twice for the same offense”
States the core holding that dual convictions from the same act violate 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 intelligencePruett was involved in a fatal altercation with a 78-year-old man. He was charged with felony murder, battery on a person 65 years of age or older. Th…
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 Double Jeopardy Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State seeks rehearing and clarification of our opinion in Pruett v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D508 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.15, 1999), reversing the simple battery conviction and sentence and remanding for resentencing. We withdraw the prior opinion issued in this cause, deny the motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification by entering this revised opinion.
Appellant, Max Michael Pruett, appeals his convictions of battery and battery upon a person 65 years of age or older. He contends that the trial court violated double jeopardy principles by convicting and sentencing him for both offenses where both arose from the same act. We agree and reverse appellant’s conviction for simple battery.
As a result of a fatal altercation with a 78-year old man, appellant was charged with felony murder, section 782.04(4), Florida Statutes (1997), and battery on a person 65 years of age or older, sections 784.03(l)(a) and 784.08, Florida Statutes (1997). The jury convicted appellant of simple battery as a lesser included offense of the felony murder charge and battery on a person 65 years of age or older, as charged. The two convictions are factually based on one and the same single factual event. Despite appellant’s failure to raise this double jeopardy issue below, this issue is cognizable on direct appeal as fundamental error. See Austin v. State, 699 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(en banc)(holding that a double jeopardy violation constitutes a fundamental error permitting review of a claim on appeal as to both convictions and sentences); see also Jones v. State, 711 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Butler v. State, 711 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Therefore, appellant’s conviction for simple battery constituted a second conviction for the same substantive offense contrary to the double jeopardy prohibition which precludes a defendant from being punished twice for the same offense.
The record reflects and the State acknowledges that appellant’s conviction for battery and battery upon a person 65 years of age or older arose from the same facts. Thus, appellant may not be convicted of both. See Hall v. State, 654 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(eoncluding that appellant may not be convicted of both aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older and aggravated battery, when the convictions arose from the same facts); see also Jelks v. State, 509 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for the simple battery. We affirm the remaining conviction and sentence for battery upon a person 65 years of age or older. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ackerman v. State, 737 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…., Fla. Stat. (1997); Duhart v. State, 724 So. 2d 1223, 1224-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), so that a verdict against Mr. Ackerman on all three counts could not have supported three separate convictions, see Pruett v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1013, D1013, 731 So. 2d 113, 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Austin v. State, 699 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (en banc); Vitagliano v. State, 680 So. 2d 500, 501-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), striking the DUI Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Death counts…
-
Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…784.082, Florida Statutes. He asserts that the dual convictions violate the double jeopardy clause. Despite Appellant’s failure to raise a double jeopardy issue at the trial level, we review the matter for fundamental er [*357] ror. Pruett v. State, 731 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The evidence presented to the jury was uncontroverted that Appellant attacked another detainee in the Duval County Jail on April 15, 2010. The single encounter lasted only a few moments and resulted in a puncture wound and a cu…
Authorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 699 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Jones v. State, 711 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Butler v. State, 711 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Enoch D. Hall v. State, 654 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Jelks v. State, 509 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)