ROBERT GAFFNEY
v.
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.
Double jeopardy analysis under Florida Statutes section 775.021(4) must be conducted without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial, even where an alternative conduct statute is implicated.
[1] Double jeopardy analysis under Florida Statutes section 775.021(4) must be conducted without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial, regardless o…
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“We recede from our prior decision in Gibbs [v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1997),] and hold that a double jeopardy analysis must—in accordance with section 775.021(4)[, Florida Statutes]—be conducted without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial, even where an alternative conduct statute is implicated.”
The court's statement of the governing legal standard in Roughton v. State, upon which the affirmance is based.
Robert Gaffney appealed his criminal conviction from the Circuit Court for Duval County.…
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 Double Jeopardy Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 2016) (“We recede from our prior decision in Gibbs [v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1997),] and hold that a double jeopardy analysis must—in accordance with section 775.021(4)[, Florida Statutes]— be conducted without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial, even where an alternative conduct statute is implicated.”).
EDWARDS, C.J., LAMBERT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.