CLAUDE LEE TAYLOR, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed Taylor's domestic battery by strangulation conviction but reversed his simple battery conviction as duplicative under double jeopardy principles, since the strangulation charge subsumed the simple battery elements from the same choking act.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both domestic battery by strangulation and simple battery arising from the same act of choking, as the elements of the former subsume the latter in violation of double jeopardy.
[1] A defendant may not be convicted of both domestic battery by strangulation and simple battery arising from the same act where the elements of the former subsume the latte…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the elements of domestic battery by strangulation subsume the elements of simple battery, and both convictions stemmed from [Appellant's single act of choking the victim.”
Court's explanation for why the dual convictions violate double jeopardy
Claude Lee Taylor was convicted of one count of domestic battery by strangulation and one count of simple battery. Both convictions arose from a singl…
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 Domestic Battery By Strangulation cases and more on FLexlaw
Claude Lee Taylor appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of domestic battery by strangulation and one count of simple battery. On appeal, Appellant takes issue with an evidentiary ruling at trial, asserts that the trial court erred in denying his request for a Presentence Investigation (“PSI”) because it also found that he was a Habitual Felony Offender, and argues that his convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
We find no merit to Appellant’s eviden-tiary challenge and affirm without further comment. We also find that although Appellant was entitled to a PSI as a matter of statutory right, he expressly waived his right to a PSI on the record. However, the State properly concedes that Appellant’s dual convictions for simple battery and domestic battery by strangulation violate the prohibition against double jeopardy as “the elements of domestic battery by strangulation subsume the elements of simple battery, and both convictions stemmed from [Ajppellant’s single act of choking the victim.” Pottle v. State, 168 So.3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). See also Thompson v. State, 123 So.3d 1188, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Ramirez v. State, 113 So.3d 105, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence for simple battery.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 113 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Talvin Thompson v. State, 123 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Washington v. State, 168 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Vaughn Nicholas Pottle v. State, 168 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)