JOHN JUDD, 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.
Appellant Judd was charged with serious felonies including armed kidnapping, armed burglary, armed sexual battery, and attempted murder. A jury convicted him of lesser included offenses—three counts of misdemeanor battery and lesser felonies—but the appellate court reversed two of the three battery convictions as violating double jeopardy principles because they arose from a single criminal episode against one victim.
Two of the three misdemeanor battery convictions must be vacated under double jeopardy principles because they arose from a single criminal episode against a single victim at one location. Under the Blockburger test, separate convictions for different offenses are permissible only where each offense contains an element the other lacks, but multiple convictions for essentially the same offense stemming from one continuous incident violate double jeopardy.
[1] Separate convictions for different offenses arising from a single act are only permissible where each separate offense contains an element that the other lacks.
[2] The proper analysis to determine whether offenses arise from the same criminal episode requires consideration of whether separate victims are involved, whether the crimes…
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 the Blockburger test, separate convictions for different offenses arising from a single act are only permissible where each separate offense contains an element that the other lacks.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether multiple convictions 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 intelligenceAppellant was charged with eight counts including armed kidnapping, armed burglary of a dwelling, armed sexual battery, aggravated battery, attempted …
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 Single Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with armed kidnaping (Count I), armed burglary of a dwelling (Count II), armed sexual battery (Count III), aggravated battery (Count IV), attempted first degree murder (Count V), aggravated battery (Count VI), armed burglary of a dwelling (Count VII), and stalking (Count VIII). The jury found him guilty of three counts of battery, lesser included offenses of Counts I, III, IV; aggravated battery, a lesser included offense of Count V; and trespass, a lesser included offense of Count VII. We affirm, but reverse two of the three misdemeanor battery convictions on double jeopardy grounds, as these offenses arose from a single episode against a single victim.
Under the Blockburger test, separate convictions for different offenses arising from a single act are only permissible where each separate offense contains an element that the other lacks. See 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). “The proper analysis to determine whether offenses arise from the same criminal episode requires consideration of the following factors: 1) whether separate victims are involved; 2) whether the crimes occurred in separate locations, and 3) whether there has been a temporal break between the incidents.” Russo v. State, 804 So. 2d 419, 420-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(quoting Vasquez v. State, 778 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).
Olivard v. State, 831 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We have reversed multiple convictions for the same offense where the factual foundation for the charges arose from “essentially one continuous incident.” See Russo, 804 So. 2d at 421; Johnson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(reversing multiple aggravated battery convictions where the acts arose from a “single act occurring in an uninterrupted sequence”); Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Campbell-Eley v. State, 718 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
In this case, the evidence at trial showed that the three misdemeanor battery convictions were based on offenses that involved the same victim, occurred at the victim’s home, and were committed as part of one continuous criminal episode. Accordingly, we remand with directions to vacate two of appellant’s three misdemean-or battery convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
SHAHOOD, TAYLOR, JJ., and FLEET, J. LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ocasio v. State, 994 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…t all, because his claim of self-defense did not apply to the crime charged. With respect to appellant’s sentence, we conclude that the two battery convictions cannot stand as they arose from the same incident without temporal break. Judd v. State, 839 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (where the state charged defendant with various offenses including armed kidnapping, armed sexual battery, and armed burglary, and the court found him guilty of three counts of battery as lesser included offenses, only one o…
-
Pestano v. State, 306 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…criminal episode requires consideration of the following factors: 1) whether separate victims are involved; 2) whether the crimes occurred in separate locations, and 3) whether there has been a temporal break between the incidents.” Judd v. State, 839 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Russo v. State, 804 So. 2d 419, 420–21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). In this case, the evidence at trial showed that multiple acts of penile penetration involved the same victim, occurred in the same location and occurred c…
-
Malcolm v. State (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…occurred in separate locations; and 3) whether there has been a temporal break between the incidents." Russo v. State, 804 So. 2d 419, 420-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Vasquez v. State, 778 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). Judd v. State, 839 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Olivard v. State, 931 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)) (citation omitted). Thus, a defendant's guarantee against double jeopardy is violated when multiple convictions arise from a single "continuous incident." R…
Authorities Cited
- Elliott Vasquez v. State, 778 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Campbell-Eley v. State, 718 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Erickson Olivard v. State, 831 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Russo v. State, 804 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Johnson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)