Sutton v. State, 43 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Sutton v. State, 43 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“njeither the charging information nor the jury verdict form included language clearly predicating the disputed charges on two distinct sex acts.”
85 citation events (85 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: CHRISTOPHER LEON JACOBS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-05-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) CHRISTOPHER LEON JACOBS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
had distinct acts been found, the analysis would end here" without proceeding to the "same elements test.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State of Florida v. Brian Mitchell Lee (11×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
njeither the charging information nor the jury verdict form included language clearly predicating the disputed charges on two distinct sex acts.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Drawdy v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
multiple punishments and convictions may rest on offenses occurring within differing criminal episodes.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence Alan Neu v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Under State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015), if Neu committed a single act of computer solicitation, then the different elements test prohibits punishment for both solicitation (count 6) and travel after 1 For a pre-Trappman but otherwise similar formulation, see Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), explaining, “In deciding whether separate offenses exist, absent clear Legislative intent, Florida law requires a three-step inquiry into whether the same offense has been charged multiple times.” 7 solicitation (count 8).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NOUMAN KHAN RAJA v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
In reviewing a double jeopardy claim, the threshold inquiry is whether the charges “were based on an act or acts which occurred within the same criminal transaction and/or episode.” Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
examined Cited as authority (rule) PATRICK GAMMAGE v. STATE OF FLORIDA (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Distinct Acts Having determined that all of Gammage's girlfriend's acts occurred during a single criminal episode, we must still consider whether her acts constituted "distinct acts." See State v. Drawdy, 136 So. 3d 1209, 1213 (Fla. 2014) (holding that if multiple offenses occur within the same criminal episode, "double jeopardy is not implicated - 13 - where each offense is a 'distinct criminal act' "); see also Paul, 934 So. 2d at 1172 n.3 ("Of course, if two convictions occurred based on two distinct criminal acts, double jeopardy is not a concern."); Partch, 43 So. 3d at 760 (considering a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleming v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
V, U.S. Const. Art I, § 9, Fla. Const. Under section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), “[wjhoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense.” Therefore, when considering a double jeopardy claim alleging multiple convictions for the same offense, we first consider whether the convictions arose from the same criminal transaction or episode. § 775.021(4)(a); see also Lee v. State, 223 So.3d 342, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
However, “[mjultiple punishments and convictions may rest on offenses occurring within differing criminal episodes,” Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
examined Cited as authority (rule) MATTHEW JOSEPH DETTLE v. State of Florida (4×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758, 761-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Welch, 189 So.3d at 302 (quoting Ham-mel, 934 So.2d at 635 ); Anthony, 108 So.3d at 1119 (citing Cabrera, 884 So.2d at 484 ); Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Hayes v. State, 803 So.2d 695, 700 (Fla.2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joey Hughes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Welch, 189 So. 3d at 302 (quoting Hammel, 934 So. 2d at 635 ); Anthony, 108 So. 3d at 1119 (citing Cabrera, 884 So. 2d at 484 ); Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Hayes v. State, 803 So. 2d 695, 700 (Fla. 2001)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Holt v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Mizner v. State, 154 So.3d 391, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 761-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marcus Jamal Graham v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1069 (Fla.2009); Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 759-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dana David Johnson v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Tindal v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“If the charges are not predicated on distinct acts and have occurred within the same criminal episode, we must next decide if the charges survive a same elements test as defined by section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2008), commonly referred to as the Blockburger analysis.” Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Murphy
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Double Jeopardy “ ‘The most familiar concept of the term “double jeopardy” is that the Constitution prohibits subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions and punishments for the same criminal offense.’ ” Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1069 (Fla.2009)); see also Amend.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Consequently, Appellant’s convictions present no double jeopardy concerns. ‘“The most familiar concept of the term “double jeopardy” is that the Constitution prohibits subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions and punishments for the same criminal offense.’ ” Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1069 (Fla.2009)); see U.S. Const, amend.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aubuchon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1077 (Fla.2009) (holding that section 775.021(4)(b)(2) applies to offenses that are different degrees of the same offense); cf. Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that the offenses of sexual battery and attempted sexual battery are degrees of the same crime, so conviction of both violated double jeopardy).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.J.R. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
In Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), we explained that section 775.021 requires a three step inquiry to determine whether the defendant’s convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
discussed Cited "see" Markquise Deshawn Wallace v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that where the charges are not based on distinct acts, a court must determine whether the offenses satisfy the same elements test).
discussed Cited "see" Chad Mercer v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Partch, 43 So.3d at 762 (explaining that where dual convictions are based on distinct acts, it is unnecessary to apply the same elements test).
cited Cited "see" Sanders v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Partch, 43 So.3d at 760 ; see also Smith v. State, 41 So.3d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
discussed Cited "see" Manetta v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 761-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (applying double jeopardy where “neither the charging information nor the jury verdict form included language clearly predicating the dispute charges on two distinct acts.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Batchelor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“If the charges are not predicated on distinct acts and have occurred within the same criminal episode, we must next decide if the charges survive a same elements test as defined by section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2008), commonly referred tó as the Blockburger analysis.” (emphasis added)).
Melvin SUTTON, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
3D10-609.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jul 14, 2010.
43 So. 3d 758
Gersten, Shepherd, and Lagoa.
Published

Melvin Sutton, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, SHEPHERD, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 935 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).