MICHAEL T. PARTON, 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.
The court held that the trial court must either conclusively refute the defendant's double jeopardy claim or grant an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant was convicted of attempted sexual battery, false imprisonment, and battery. He filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that co…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Parton appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of Mr. Parton’s first, third, fourth and fifth claims without further elaboration. However, we conclude that Mr. Parton’s second claim, an alleged double jeopardy violation, merits further consideration.
After a jury trial, Mr. Parton was convicted of attempted sexual battery, false imprisonment and battery. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. See Parton v. State, 37 So.3d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Mr. Parton then filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. In his second claim, he contends that his convictions for both attempted sexual battery and simple battery violate double jeopardy principles because they are based on the same acts. Decisional law holds that a defendant can be convicted of both sexual battery and battery. See Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Beltran v. State, 700 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, if the battery is based on the same acts that form the basis for the sexual battery, double jeopardy prohibits dual convictions. Herrera, 879 So.2d at 41.
Based on the limited record before us, it cannot be determined if the act that constituted the simple battery was the same act that constituted the attempted sexual battery. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Mr. Par-ton’s claim or grant him an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romayne O. Morrison v. State, 227 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…y.1 We affirm his conviction and sentence for attempted sexual battery. However, the battery was part and parcel of the attempted sexual battery, and a separate conviction for that charge was precluded by double jeopardy. See, e.g., Parton v. State, 59 So. 3d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“[A] defendant can be convicted of both [attempted] sexual battery and battery. However, if the battery is based on the same acts that form the basis for the sexual battery, double jeopardy prohibits dual convictions.” (ci…
Authorities Cited
- Beltran v. State, 700 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Herrera v. State, 879 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)