Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Florida v. Jose Maisonet-Maldonadogreen1 sentence2024The Court in Maisonet-Maldonado held that the statutory language of section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (2010), “clearly expresses that offenses which pass the codified Blockburger test should be punished separately and that there is no exception for offenses arising from a single death.” Id. at 69. | 1 | 1 |
State of Florida v. Dean Alden Shelleygreen1 sentence2020A. Double Jeopardy Principles and the Single Homicide Rule “As this Court has explained, both the United States and Florida Constitutions contain double jeopardy clauses that ‘prohibit[ ] subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense.’ ” State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Valdes v. Stategreen1 sentence2020A. Double Jeopardy Principles and the Single Homicide Rule “As this Court has explained, both the United States and Florida Constitutions contain double jeopardy clauses that ‘prohibit[ ] subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense.’ ” State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Multiple convictions for offenses that fall within the statutory exceptions violate the constitutional provisions that protect against double jeopardy. 2 In Jones v. State, 764 So.2d 659, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), an analogous case, we applied the second statutory exception of section 775.021(4)(b) to find a double jeopardy violation. | 1 | 1 |
Swilley v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Swilley v. State, 845 So.2d 930, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Carawan v. Statered2 sentences1989In Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court construed section 775.021 as a rule of statutory construction, noting that in the absence of any express statement of legislative intent, the Blockburger test creates a presumption as to the actual legislative intent, but that the court "then must consider the presumption so created in light of any relevant factors that may indicate a contrary legislature intent." The court held that if application of the Blockburger test reveals that each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, "multiple punishments are presu 1989In Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court construed section 775.021 as a rule of statutory construction, noting that in the absence of any express statement of legislative intent, the Blockburger test creates a presumption as to the actual legislative intent, but that the court "then must consider the presumption so created in light of any relevant factors that may indicate a contrary legislature intent." The court held that if application of the Blockburger test reveals that each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, "multiple punishments are presu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chapman
red
1 sentence2020ANALYSIS Because the statutory language of section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2010), clearly states the intent of the Legislature to punish each available offense and does not provide an exception for offenses arising from a single death, we conclude that section 775.021 supersedes our decisions establishing the single homicide rule and that our decision holding otherwise, State v. Chapman, 625 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1993), -3- was wrongly decided. 2 Accordingly, we recede from Chapman, answer the certified question in the negative, and quash the Fifth District’s decision in Maisonet-Maldonado. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sirmons v. State
green
1 sentence2012We held, in pertinent part, as follows: In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994), and State v. Anderson, 695 So.2d 309 (Fla.1997), the supreme court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of two offenses which are merely degree variants of the same underlying core offense. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2012We held, in pertinent part, as follows: In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994), and State v. Anderson, 695 So.2d 309 (Fla.1997), the supreme court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of two offenses which are merely degree variants of the same underlying core offense. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hegstrom
red
1 sentence1982State v. Hegstrom, supra . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.