Blockburger test in Florida

2026The “same-elements” test—also known as the Blockburger test— provides that two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes unless “each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). “[T]he Blockburger test has been codified in Florida at section 775.021(4) [Fla. Stat. (2022)].” M.P. v. State, 682 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996).

2026The “same-elements” test—also known as the Blockburger test— provides that two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes unless “each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). “[T]he Blockburger test has been codified in Florida at section 775.021(4) [Fla. Stat. (2022)].” M.P. v. State, 682 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996).

2020Embracing the rule of lenity in the context of double jeopardy, the Carawan Court found that “Florida’s lenity requirement constitute[d] a rule of construction coequal to the Blockburger test codified in section 775.021(4)” and reconciled the -6- two by concluding that the rule of lenity prevailed “where there [was] a reasonable basis for concluding the legislature did not intent multiple punishments.” Id. at 168 .

2020Embracing the rule of lenity in the context of double jeopardy, the Carawan Court found that “Florida’s lenity requirement constitute[d] a rule of construction coequal to the Blockburger test codified in section 775.021(4)” and reconciled the -6- two by concluding that the rule of lenity prevailed “where there [was] a reasonable basis for concluding the legislature did not intent multiple punishments.” Id. at 168 .

2011The analysis of these two statutes reveals no clear statement of legislative intent one way or the other. *558 “[A]bsent an explicit statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, application of the Blockburger ‘same-elements’ test pursuant to section 775.021(4) ... is the sole method of determining whether multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.” Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.1996) (footnote omitted); see also Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1070 (“ ‘Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, co

2011The analysis of these two statutes reveals no clear statement of legislative intent one way or the other. *558 “[A]bsent an explicit statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, application of the Blockburger ‘same-elements’ test pursuant to section 775.021(4) ... is the sole method of determining whether multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.” Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.1996) (footnote omitted); see also Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1070 (“ ‘Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, co

2026The “same-elements” test—also known as the Blockburger test— provides that two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes unless “each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). “[T]he Blockburger test has been codified in Florida at section 775.021(4) [Fla. Stat. (2022)].” M.P. v. State, 682 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996).

2026The “same-elements” test—also known as the Blockburger test— provides that two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes unless “each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). “[T]he Blockburger test has been codified in Florida at section 775.021(4) [Fla. Stat. (2022)].” M.P. v. State, 682 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996).

2000See M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.1996); State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla.1989) ("With respect to cumulative sentences in a single trial, the dispositive question is whether the legislature intended separate convictions and sentences for the two crimes."). [S]imply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy *1137 Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. ...

2000See M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.1996); State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla.1989) ("With respect to cumulative sentences in a single trial, the dispositive question is whether the legislature intended separate convictions and sentences for the two crimes."). [S]imply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy *1137 Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. ...

2022The Florida Supreme Court noted this is because “the Blockburger test by its very nature is designed to distinguish between . . . crimes that are ‘necessarily lesser included’ offenses and . . . crimes that are not.” State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923, 926 (Fla. 1991).

2022The Florida Supreme Court noted this is because “the Blockburger test by its very nature is designed to distinguish between . . . crimes that are ‘necessarily lesser included’ offenses and . . . crimes that are not.” State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923, 926 (Fla. 1991).

2024While acknowledging that the two crimes constitute separate offenses under a Blockburger analysis, the Court held that “only one homicide conviction 17 and sentence may be imposed for a single death.” Id. at 1196 .

2024While acknowledging that the two crimes constitute separate offenses under a Blockburger analysis, the Court held that “only one homicide conviction 17 and sentence may be imposed for a single death.” Id. at 1196 .

2025The evidence at trial showed no temporal break in her driving sufficient for her to reflect and form a new intent to commit a separate act of driving under the influence. 13 Because Defendant’s convictions arose from a single criminal episode, and because the DUI statute, section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2022), does not express clear legislative intent to authorize or prohibit separate punishments, “the next inquiry is whether separate punishments for the two convictions violate the Blockburger test, as codified in section 775.021(4).” Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 2009).

2025The evidence at trial showed no temporal break in her driving sufficient for her to reflect and form a new intent to commit a separate act of driving under the influence. 13 Because Defendant’s convictions arose from a single criminal episode, and because the DUI statute, section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2022), does not express clear legislative intent to authorize or prohibit separate punishments, “the next inquiry is whether separate punishments for the two convictions violate the Blockburger test, as codified in section 775.021(4).” Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 2009).

1983The analysis and comparison of the essential constituent elements of criminal offenses, which is the true Blockburger test, is the view in State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); the supreme court Bell case (Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983)); the dissent in Torrence v. State, 440 So.2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); the dissent in Baker v. State, 431 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Monarca v. State, 412 So.2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in the DCA Bell case (Bell v. State

1983The analysis and comparison of the essential constituent elements of criminal offenses, which is the true Blockburger test, is the view in State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); the supreme court Bell case (Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983)); the dissent in Torrence v. State, 440 So.2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); the dissent in Baker v. State, 431 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Monarca v. State, 412 So.2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in the DCA Bell case (Bell v. State

2011The analysis of these two statutes reveals no clear statement of legislative intent one way or the other. *558 “[A]bsent an explicit statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, application of the Blockburger ‘same-elements’ test pursuant to section 775.021(4) ... is the sole method of determining whether multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.” Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.1996) (footnote omitted); see also Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1070 (“ ‘Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, co

2011The analysis of these two statutes reveals no clear statement of legislative intent one way or the other. *558 “[A]bsent an explicit statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, application of the Blockburger ‘same-elements’ test pursuant to section 775.021(4) ... is the sole method of determining whether multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.” Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.1996) (footnote omitted); see also Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1070 (“ ‘Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, co

2020Thus, “[u]nder the Blockburger test, separate convictions for different 2 offenses arising from a single act are permissible where each separate offense contains an element that the other lacks.” Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (footnote omitted).

2020Thus, “[u]nder the Blockburger test, separate convictions for different 2 offenses arising from a single act are permissible where each separate offense contains an element that the other lacks.” Gresham v. State, 725 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (footnote omitted).

1982In Preston v. State, 397 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), this court, citing Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975), recognized that the Blockburger test emphasizes the statutory elements of the two crimes.

1982In Preston v. State, 397 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), this court, citing Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975), recognized that the Blockburger test emphasizes the statutory elements of the two crimes.

2019See Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 2016) ("[T]he plain language of section 775.021(4)(a)[ ] requires that the elements of the offenses be compared 'without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.' " (emphasis omitted)); State v. Carpenter, 417 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1982) ("In applying the Blockburger test the courts look only to the statutory elements of each offense and not to the actual evidence to be presented at trial or the facts as alleged in a particular information." (citing Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 694 n.8 (1980))).

2019See Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 2016) ("[T]he plain language of section 775.021(4)(a)[ ] requires that the elements of the offenses be compared 'without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.' " (emphasis omitted)); State v. Carpenter, 417 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1982) ("In applying the Blockburger test the courts look only to the statutory elements of each offense and not to the actual evidence to be presented at trial or the facts as alleged in a particular information." (citing Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 694 n.8 (1980))).

2017The Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction which “serves as a means of discerning [legislative] purpose” only where there is no “clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981).

2017The Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction which “serves as a means of discerning [legislative] purpose” only where there is no “clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981).

2019See Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 2016) ("[T]he plain language of section 775.021(4)(a)[ ] requires that the elements of the offenses be compared 'without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.' " (emphasis omitted)); State v. Carpenter, 417 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1982) ("In applying the Blockburger test the courts look only to the statutory elements of each offense and not to the actual evidence to be presented at trial or the facts as alleged in a particular information." (citing Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 694 n.8 (1980))).

2019See Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 2016) ("[T]he plain language of section 775.021(4)(a)[ ] requires that the elements of the offenses be compared 'without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.' " (emphasis omitted)); State v. Carpenter, 417 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1982) ("In applying the Blockburger test the courts look only to the statutory elements of each offense and not to the actual evidence to be presented at trial or the facts as alleged in a particular information." (citing Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 694 n.8 (1980))).

1999See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) ("For purposes of applying the Blockburger test in this setting as a means of ascertaining congressional intent, `punishment' must be the equivalent of a criminal conviction and not simply the imposition of sentence.

1999See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) ("For purposes of applying the Blockburger test in this setting as a means of ascertaining congressional intent, `punishment' must be the equivalent of a criminal conviction and not simply the imposition of sentence.

2010The United States Supreme Court then upheld the dual convictions, concluding “that simply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes.” Id. at 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673 .

2010The United States Supreme Court then upheld the dual convictions, concluding “that simply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes.” Id. at 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673 .

1996Florida's second departure from traditional Blockburger analysis derives from State v. Baker, 456 So.2d 419, 421 (Fla.1984), where the supreme court construed Blockburger to mean "that two statutory offenses are essentially independent and distinct if each offense can possibly be committed without committing the other offense." [9] The supreme court followed this approach in McCloud without citing to Baker .

1984Our inquiry does not end there because, as indicated in the above quote from State v. Baker, supra, the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction which must yield when there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.

1983The analysis and comparison of the essential constituent elements of criminal offenses, which is the true Blockburger test, is the view in State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); the supreme court Bell case (Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983)); the dissent in Torrence v. State, 440 So.2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); the dissent in Baker v. State, 431 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Monarca v. State, 412 So.2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in the DCA Bell case (Bell v. State

1983The analysis and comparison of the essential constituent elements of criminal offenses, which is the true Blockburger test, is the view in State v. Cantrell, 417 So.2d 260 (Fla.1982); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); the supreme court Bell case (Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983)); the dissent in Torrence v. State, 440 So.2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); the dissent in Baker v. State, 431 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Monarca v. State, 412 So.2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); the dissent in the DCA Bell case (Bell v. State

2009In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994), this Court considered whether robbery with a weapon and grand theft of an automobile constituted degree variants of the same core offense under subsection (4)(b)(2).

2009In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994), this Court considered whether robbery with a weapon and grand theft of an automobile constituted degree variants of the same core offense under subsection (4)(b)(2).

2017We examine (1) whether the convictions were based on an act or acts occurring during the same criminal transaction *938 and/or episode; (2) whether the convictions were predicated on the same or distinct acts; and (3) if the convictions did not occur during-separate-episodes and were not based on distinct acts, whether the two convictions “survive a same elements test as (Mined by section 775.021, Florida Statutes, [ (2014) ], commonly referred to as the Blockburger analysis.” Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758 , 760 “ (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct

2017We examine (1) whether the convictions were based on an act or acts occurring during the same criminal transaction *938 and/or episode; (2) whether the convictions were predicated on the same or distinct acts; and (3) if the convictions did not occur during-separate-episodes and were not based on distinct acts, whether the two convictions “survive a same elements test as (Mined by section 775.021, Florida Statutes, [ (2014) ], commonly referred to as the Blockburger analysis.” Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758 , 760 “ (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct

2017“However, the prohibition against double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple convictions and punishments where a defendant commits two or more distinct criminal acts.” Hayes v. State, 803 So. 2d 695, 700 (Fla. 2001) (armed robbery and subsequent theft under facts in that case were “sufficiently separate in time, place and circumstances . . . to constitute distinct and independent criminal acts.”).

2017“However, the prohibition against double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple convictions and punishments where a defendant commits two or more distinct criminal acts.” Hayes v. State, 803 So. 2d 695, 700 (Fla. 2001) (armed robbery and subsequent theft under facts in that case were “sufficiently separate in time, place and circumstances . . . to constitute distinct and independent criminal acts.”).

2014However, “[b]ecause the Blockburger test applies to crimes occurring in only ‘one criminal transaction or episode,’ the first step is to review whether there was one criminal episode or multiple episodes.” Paul, 934 So.2d at 1172 .

2014However, “[b]ecause the Blockburger test applies to crimes occurring in only ‘one criminal transaction or episode,’ the first step is to review whether there was one criminal episode or multiple episodes.” Paul, 934 So.2d at 1172 .