RICHARD DALTON TUCKER, 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 Tucker was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder and two counts of attempted felony murder. The court reversed the attempted felony murder convictions because they constituted double jeopardy violations when charged alongside the attempted premeditated murder convictions based on the same conduct.
The court held that the dual convictions for attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder constitute double jeopardy violations because attempted premeditated murder serves as the sole underlying felony for attempted felony murder, leaving no distinct intentional act required by the attempted felony murder statute.
[1] Dual convictions for attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder arising from the same criminal act violate double jeopardy principles.
[2] Attempted felony murder requires proof of an intentional act separate from and not an essential element of the underlying felony.
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“In this case, the attempted premeditated first degree murder charges serve as the sole underlying felonies for the attempted felony murder charges. No act distinguishes the attempted premeditated murder from the attempted felony murder; the attempted murder is the predicate felony and the same act on the same victim.”
Establishes the factual basis for the double jeopardy violation—that no separate act distinguishes the two charges.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant shot Wilfredo and Martin Martinez at a park. He shot Martin in the back, paralyzing his legs, and attempted additional shots at Martin's fac…
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 Attempted Premeditated Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Appellant was convicted of attempted first degree murder and attempted felony murder of Wilfredo Martinez and his nephew, Martin Martinez. He was sentenced to four consecutive life terms, with a twenty-five year mandatory sentence on each count. We reverse only appellant’s dual convictions for attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder because they constitute double jeopardy violations.
On the night of the incident that led to these charges, Wilfredo and Martin Martinez were fishing at Rivergate Park in Port St. Lucie. While fishing, they noticed appellant, a stranger to them, in the area. The Martinezes became apprehensive because appellant looked angry. They decided to leave. As they gathered their equipment, appellant walked past them. When appellant walked behind Martin, he started shooting. He shot Martin in the back, paralyzing both of his legs. Martin heard another pop and felt a strong sting on his upper right shoulder. Appellant held the gun on Martin and .tried to reload it. After putting another round in the chamber, he shot at Martin again, this time aiming for his face. Martin turned away, and the bullet hit his arm and ricocheted down to his leg.
Wilfredo looked back and saw the shooting. He grabbed a bucket to protect his head. Appellant then started shooting at Wilfredo. He tried to get around the bucket, aiming for Wilfredo’s. head. He also attempted to shoot Wilfredo in the side. As he continued to fire the gun, appellant shot Wilfredo in the arm, hand, and stomach. After the shootings, appellant looked from side to side, ran to his van, and left. The victims managed to get to a hospital for emergency treatment. After interviewing the victims, the police made a composite sketch of the suspect and eventually conducted a photo line up. The bullets retrieved from the victims’ bodies and the shell casings were traced to a gun found in appellant’s possession.
Appellant was charged by information with two counts of attempted first degree murder (Counts I and II) and two counts of attempted felony murder of Martin and Wilfredo Martinez (Counts III and IV).1 The information tracked the language of attempted felony murder under section 782.051(1), Florida Statutes (2000). Attempted felony murder under this subsection is defined as follows:
Any person who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate any felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) and who commits, aids, or abets an intentional act that is not an essential element of the felony and that could, but does not, cause the death of another commits a felony of the first degree ... (emphasis added).
In this case, the attempted premeditated first degree murder charges serve as the sole underlying felonies for the attempted felony murder charges. No act distinguishes the attempted premeditated murder from the attempted felony murder; the attempted murder is the predicate felony and the same act on the same victim. In other words, there is no intentional act that is not an essential element of the attempted premeditated murder as is required by section 782.051(1). Hence, appellant’s dual convictions for attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder constitute double jeopardy. See Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17, 25 (Fla.2001) (recognizing the principle that dual convictions for attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder are impermissible) and Mitchell v. State, 830 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that double jeopardy barred dual convictions for attempted second degree murder and attempted felony murder arising from the same criminal act; both crimes fell within core offense of homicide and addressed punishment for acts that could inflict death).
We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences on Counts I and II for the crimes of attempted first degree murder, but vacate the convictions and sentences on Counts III and IV for attempted felony murder. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
FARMER, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur. . At trial, appellant relied on the insanity defense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Florida, 894 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2005)…ict courts have held to the contrary in determining that convictions of both attempted premeditated (first-degree) or depraved mind (second-degree) murder and attempted felony murder for a single killing violate double jeopardy. See Tucker v. State, 857 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Mitchell v. State, 830 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). I would reach the same result, but because the core offense of both crimes is battery rather than homicide. Attempted felony murder, as codified in section 782.051(1), Flori…
-
Wilkes v. State, 123 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…traditionally resorted to by Florida’s courts. See Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Jackson v. State, 868 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Deangelo v. State, 863 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Tucker v. State, 857 So. 2d 978, 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, the trial court sought to avoid the double jeopardy problem by entering judgment for both convictions yet withholding the imposition of sentence for one of the charges, specifically the attempted second degree murder…
-
Ahmad R. Milton v. State, 161 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 2014)…d discharge this case. I therefore dissent. Contrary to the view adopted by the majority, the decision of the Third District Court in Milton v. State, 126 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), does not expressly and directly conflict with Tucker v. State, 857 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). While both Milton and Tucker involve appeals by defendants who were charged with attempted felony murder with a predicate felony of attempted murder, Milton and Tucker are factually distinguishable. See Milton, 126 So. 3d at 274…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bryon Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2001)
- White v. State, 830 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)