transaction rule in Florida

1981However, the principal case relied on for that conclusion, Kirkland v. State, 299 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), was reversed by the Supreme Court in State v. Kirkland, 322 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1975); also see Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1975).

1976It held that "the attempted sexual battery for which the appellant was convicted was an essential element of the breaking and entering charge." In Jenkins, supra, this Court upheld the imposition of separate sentences for possession of cannabis sativa and possession of an hallucinogenic drug even though the defendant was found in possession of the two separate drug substances on the same occasion.

1984Additionally, applying the single transaction rule which was in effect at the time the crime was committed, State v. Munford, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978), we conclude that the sentence for the unlawful display of a firearm must be vacated.

1982See also Cantrell v. State, 405 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). [22] Judge Hurley, concurring in Borges , states that the single transaction rule first appeared in Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778 , 10 So.2d 436 (1942), but Chief Judge Robert Trask Mann, in Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), traces it to Cribb v. State, 9 Fla. 409, 416 (1861). [23] See, e.g., Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and cases cited therein. [24] See Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 1979); State v. Munford, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978); Por

1973For more than a century the Supreme Court of Florida has adhered with constancy, with the single apparent exception of Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386 , which we now understand more clearly and discuss herein, to the so-called single transaction rule, limiting punishment to the gravest of those several offenses into which a single criminal episode may be categorized.

1973For more than a century the Supreme Court of Florida has adhered with constancy, with the single apparent exception of Steele v. Mayo, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 386 , which we now understand more clearly and discuss herein, to the so-called single transaction rule, limiting punishment to the gravest of those several offenses into which a single criminal episode may be categorized.

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1988If it considered that it could impose only one sentence for separately charged counts, each of which was a facet or phase of the same transaction, see Johnson v. State, 366 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1978), I would simply observe that the single transaction rule has since been supplanted by the legislature's amendment to § 775.021(4), Fla. Stat., effective June 22, 1983, see Ch. 83-156, Laws of Fla., requiring separate sentences for each criminal offense, "if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not... ." If, on the other hand, it was the court's intention to withhold imposition

1984Johnson v. State, 366 So.2d 418 (Fla.1978).

1982See, e.g., Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 1979); State v. Munford, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978); Portee v. State, 392 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

1982See also Cantrell v. State, 405 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). [22] Judge Hurley, concurring in Borges , states that the single transaction rule first appeared in Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778 , 10 So.2d 436 (1942), but Chief Judge Robert Trask Mann, in Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), traces it to Cribb v. State, 9 Fla. 409, 416 (1861). [23] See, e.g., Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and cases cited therein. [24] See Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 1979); State v. Munford, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978); Por

1982See, e.g., Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 1979); State v. Munford, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978); Portee v. State, 392 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

1982See also Cantrell v. State, 405 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). [22] Judge Hurley, concurring in Borges , states that the single transaction rule first appeared in Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778 , 10 So.2d 436 (1942), but Chief Judge Robert Trask Mann, in Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), traces it to Cribb v. State, 9 Fla. 409, 416 (1861). [23] See, e.g., Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and cases cited therein. [24] See Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 1979); State v. Munford, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978); Por

1982The court certified the following questions as being of great public importance: (1) Has the advent of Florida Statute 775.021(4) done away with the single transaction rule? (2) Is category 4 of Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1968), adequate to safeguard a defendant's right not to be subject to double jeopardy? 394 So.2d at 1049 .

1982This court also pointed out in Borges v. State, 394 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), affirmed, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982), that the legislature has abrogated the single transaction rule.

1977Caivano v. State, 276 So.2d 245 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

1975Cf. Caivano v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 276 So.2d 245 ; Yost v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 243 So.2d 469 . [1] (1957), 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 . [2] (Fla.App.2d, 1974), 301 So.2d 813 .

1976Estevez v. State, supra .

1975Our decisions in Steele v. Mayo, supra , Estevez v. State, supra , and Jenkins v. Wainwright, supra , dispose of all issues.

1974This case differs from Edmond v. State, Fla.App. 2d, 1973, 280 So.2d 449 , cert. denied 287 So.2d 690 , in one significant respect.

1974See Davis v. State, 277 So.2d 300 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1973), cert. den. 283 So.2d 564 (Fla.1973): Edmond v. State, 280 So.2d 449 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1973), cert. den. 287 So.2d 690 (Fla.1973).

1973Our sister court in the Fourth District seems to have reasoned from a double jeopardy case, State v. Conrad, Fla.App. 4th 1971, 243 So.2d 174 , to the conclusion, derived in part from Footman, from which we have since receded, that cumulative punishment is permissible where breaking and entering ensues in larceny.

1973Our sister court in the Fourth District seems to have reasoned from a double jeopardy case, State v. Conrad, Fla.App. 4th 1971, 243 So.2d 174 , to the conclusion, derived in part from Footman , from which we have since receded, that cumulative punishment is permissible where breaking and entering ensues in larceny.

2020“The ‘same transaction’ exception is limited to third-degree felony charges that arise from the same transaction as the current offense.” Braine, 255 So. 3d at 473 .

1997All American claims that the faulty machine designed and manufactured by Bytek did more than damage itself: it also destroyed the microchips which were "other property" thus bringing this transaction under the exception to the economic loss rule as set out in Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1993).

1992Stratton v. State, 77 So.2d 865 (Fla.1955); Pettigrew v. State, 295 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 300 So.2d 21 (Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 336 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974).

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1992The "conduct" emphasized in Grady v. Corbin can be seen as the "evil" referred to in Carawan and both are examples of the concept of a basic nuclear or core offense composed of elements to which we added ancillary elements in order to distinguish and punish more severely egregious instances of the basic, core, nuclear offense. [31] See the dissent in Smith v. State, 548 So.2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1992Stratton v. State, 77 So.2d 865 (Fla.1955); Pettigrew v. State, 295 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 300 So.2d 21 (Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 336 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974).

1992Hampton, 336 So.2d at 379 .

1992Stratton v. State, 77 So.2d 865 (Fla.1955); Pettigrew v. State, 295 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 300 So.2d 21 (Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 336 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974).

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1992I, § 16, Florida Constitution; U.S. Const. amend VI and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1973). [27] Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, was originally enacted to abolish the single transaction rule, a court created concept that in concept and result somewhat resembled, and was generally confused with, constitutional double jeopardy rights, see Baker v. State, 425 So.2d 36, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). [28] Judge Wolf in Simmons v. State, 590 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) sees the problem involved when the legislature attempts by statute to abolish or change a judic

1992Stratton v. State, 77 So.2d 865 (Fla.1955); Pettigrew v. State, 295 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 300 So.2d 21 (Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 336 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974).

1992Stratton v. State, 77 So.2d 865 (Fla.1955); Pettigrew v. State, 295 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 300 So.2d 21 (Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 336 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974).