JAMES WALTER DAVIS, JR., 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.
Convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery do not violate double jeopardy, and the sexual predator designation does not violate procedural due process.
Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and sexual battery of his ex-wife. He appealed these convictions.…
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 A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
James Walter Davis, Jr., seeks review of his convictions for the attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and sexual battery of his ex-wife. Because Davis has failed to establish reversible error we affirm. However, two issues raised by Davis merit discussion.
First, Davis argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the aggravated battery count because his convictions for both attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery violate the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense. We conclude that convictions for both crimes do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy because each of the offenses contains an element the other does not. See Gutierrez v. State, 860 So. 2d 1043, 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Schirmer v. State, 837 So. 2d 587, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). But see Florida v. State, 855 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 861 So. 2d 431 (Fla.2003) (holding that convictions for both crimes violate double jeopardy); Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same).
Second, Davis argues that his designation as a sexual predator violates his right to procedural due process, citing Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, this court has rejected that argument. See Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 859 So. 2d 514 (Fla.2003).
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newell v. State, 935 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…re offense, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon is not always subsumed within the offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. See § 775.021(4) Fla. Stat. (2001). See also Bradley v. State, 901 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 892 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review dismissed, 894 So. 2d 969 (Fla.2005); Gutierrez v. State, 860 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 906 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.2005). The issue involving the convictions for two counts of sexual battery is governed b…
Authorities Cited
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Gutierrez v. State, 860 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Florida v. State, 855 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Stafford v. Home, 837 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)