JESSIE ROBERT AGUILAR
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the offenses charged occurred during two separate criminal episodes, thus avoiding double jeopardy concerns.
Offenses charged occurred during two separate criminal episodes, permitting multiple convictions without violating double jeopardy.
[1] Offenses occurring during separate criminal episodes with temporal breaks between them do not violate double jeopardy principles, even if the time lapses are minimal.
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 intelligenceJessie Robert Aguilar was charged with offenses that the state argued occurred during separate criminal episodes.…
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 Multiple Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm because we find the offenses charged occurred during two separate criminal episodes. See Murray v. State, 890 So. 2d 451, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“In order to determine whether offenses occurred during a single criminal episode, courts look to whether there are multiple victims, whether the offenses occurred in multiple locations, and whether there has been a ‘temporal break’ between offenses.” (quoting Staley v. State, 829 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002))); see also Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that in order for crimes to be considered to have occurred in more than one criminal episode, there must be a temporal break between the two acts to allow the offender to reflect and form a new criminal intent for each offense). Even minimal lapses in time can be sufficient for a defendant to form a new criminal intent between offenses. White v. State, 924 So. 2d 957, 957–58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Further, “if two convictions occurred based on two distinct criminal acts, double jeopardy is not a concern.” State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167, 1172 n.3 (Fla. 2006). Accordingly, we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.
Affirmed.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2006)
- Keona Murray v. State, 890 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- White v. State, 924 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)