Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 775.021 (2025)

Rules of construction.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

775.021 Rules of construction.—

(1) The provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.

(2) The provisions of this chapter are applicable to offenses defined by other statutes, unless the code otherwise provides.

(3) This section does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or a civil judgment or decree.

(4)(a) Whoever, 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; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.

(b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:

1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof.

2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.

3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.

(5) Whoever commits an act that violates a provision of this code or commits a criminal offense defined by another statute and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury to, an unborn child commits a separate offense if the provision or statute does not otherwise specifically provide a separate offense for such death or injury to an unborn child.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the punishment for a separate offense under this subsection is the same as the punishment provided under this code or other statute for that conduct had the injury or death occurred to the mother of the unborn child.

(b) An offense under this subsection does not require proof that the person engaging in the conduct:

1. Had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

2. Intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty may not be imposed for an offense under this subsection.

(d) This subsection does not permit the prosecution:

1. Of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

2. Of a person for providing medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

3. Of a woman with respect to her unborn child.

(e) As used in this subsection, the term “unborn child” means a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

History.—s. 3, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 76-66; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 83-156; s. 7, ch. 88-131; s. 2, ch. 2014-194.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 775.021

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§775.021(5a)BATTERYCAUSE BOD INJ UNBRN CHLD SEE TBLE OTH FORM BATF · 2nd

§775.021(5a)HOMICIDECAUSE DEATH UNBRN CHILD SEE TBLE OTH FORM MURDF · 1st

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,171 cases (66 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 51× “Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger [2] test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), to determine whether separate offenses exist.”

State of Florida v. Brian Mitchell Lee, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). · cites it 45× “Third, 7 “[i]f 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 [(2013)], commonly referred to as the Blockburger…”

James Houston Roughton v. State of Florida, 185 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 36× “Our analysis turns on the rule of construction in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (2008), regarding “separate criminal offenses” “committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction.”

Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 30× “Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), to determine whether separate offenses exist.”

State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1989). · cites it 37× “, there will be no doubt of legislative intent and no occasion to apply the rule of lenity. In the second prong to the argument, petitioner argues that the timing and content of chapter 88-131, section 7, show that the legislative intent expressed therein was to override the…”

McKinney v. State, 66 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 42× “"Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger [ [2] ] test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes, to determine whether separate offenses exist.”

Ronald Williams v. State of Florida, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 12× “” § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the statute required the imposition of consecutive sentences for each offense subject to sentencing under section 775.”

Leronnie Lee Walton v. State of Florida, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 13× “Relying on the legislative authorization of parole, we reasoned as follows: We do not believe the legislature intended such a result as the sentence under review here when it added subsection (4) to section 775.021. In any event we are unwilling to construe these two statutes in…”

Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 19× “§ 775.021, Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, the Blockburger test, or "same-elements" test, inquires whether each offense has an element that the other does not.”

State of Florida v. Christopher Douglas Weeks, 202 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 16× “021(1), Florida Statutes (2012), which provides that, “[t]he provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.”

Gaber v. State, 684 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1996). · cites it 29× “The Blockburger test, also known as the "same-elements test," has been codified in Florida at section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1993), which contains three exceptions.”

Kelso v. State, 961 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 32× “If the Legislature clearly defined two offenses such that within a single event a violation of both could occur, the amendment to section 775.021 dictated that a defendant could be convicted and sentenced for both offenses.”

Show all 1,171 citing cases →

— 775.021(1) — 287 cases

State of Florida v. Christopher Douglas Weeks, 202 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016). “021(1), Florida Statutes (2012), which provides that, “[t]he provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.”

Ronald Williams v. State of Florida, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016). “” § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the statute required the imposition of consecutive sentences for each offense subject to sentencing under section 775.”

State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1989). “, there will be no doubt of legislative intent and no occasion to apply the rule of lenity. In the second prong to the argument, petitioner argues that the timing and content of chapter 88-131, section 7, show that the legislative intent expressed therein was to override the…”

Robin Eustache v. State of Florida, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018).

Polite v. State, 973 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2007).

— 775.021(11) — 1 case

State v. Reardon, 763 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

— 775.021(2) — 6 cases

Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993).

Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1988).

Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1995).

Williams v. State, 405 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Johnson v. State, 596 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

— 775.021(3) — 1 case

The Florida Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2007).

— 775.021(3)(c) — 1 case

Francis v. State, 208 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

— 775.021(4) — 564 cases

State of Florida v. Brian Mitchell Lee, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). “Third, 7 “[i]f 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 [(2013)], commonly referred to as the Blockburger…”

Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009). “Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), to determine whether separate offenses exist.”

McKinney v. State, 66 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 2011). “"Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger [ [2] ] test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes, to determine whether separate offenses exist.”

Baker v. State, 425 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

— 775.021(4)(2) — 1 case

State v. Reardon, 763 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

— 775.021(4)(a) — 202 cases

James Houston Roughton v. State of Florida, 185 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). “Our analysis turns on the rule of construction in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (2008), regarding “separate criminal offenses” “committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction.”

Leronnie Lee Walton v. State of Florida, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016). “Relying on the legislative authorization of parole, we reasoned as follows: We do not believe the legislature intended such a result as the sentence under review here when it added subsection (4) to section 775.021. In any event we are unwilling to construe these two statutes in…”

Gaber v. State, 684 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1996). “The Blockburger test, also known as the "same-elements test," has been codified in Florida at section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1993), which contains three exceptions.”

— 775.021(4)(b) — 225 cases

State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2006). “Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger [2] test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), to determine whether separate offenses exist.”

State of Florida v. Timothy W. Tuttle, Jr., 177 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 2015).

Diego Tambriz-Ramirez v. State of Florida, 248 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2018).

— 775.021(4)(b)(1) — 8 cases

State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991).

Lawrence v. State, 801 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Jordan Palmer v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

— 775.021(4)(b)(2) — 29 cases

State v. Florida, 894 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2005).

Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Gil v. State, 118 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2013).

— 775.021(4)(b)(3) — 35 cases

State v. McCloud, 577 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1991).

Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006).

Davis v. State, 581 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1991).

— 775.021(4)(b)(l) — 4 cases

State v. Florida, 894 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2005).

McCullough v. State, 230 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Dyson v. State, 10 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

State v. Nardi, 779 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

— 775.021(5) — 5 cases

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-report No. 2014-08, 176 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2015).

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—Report No. 2016-08, 211 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2017).

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2018-09., 262 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 2019).

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-instructions 7.8, 7.8(a), & 11.1-11.6(a), 190 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2016).

Unborn Child, Etc. v. Dir. James Reyes (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

— 775.021(5)(b) — 3 cases

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—Report No. 2016-08, 211 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2017).

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2018-09., 262 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 2019).

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-instructions 7.8, 7.8(a), & 11.1-11.6(a), 190 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2016).

— 775.021(5)(e) — 2 cases

David Lee Huckaba v. State of Florida, 260 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Virginia Denise Wyche v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

— 775.021(6) — 1 case

Wallace v. State, 689 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 775.021(a) — 2 cases

Elozar v. State, 872 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Maxwell v. State, 110 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

— 775.021(b) — 3 cases

Ramirez v. State, 113 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Jones v. State, 608 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1992).

Glover v. State, 29 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

— 775.021(l) — 2 cases

Damoah v. State, 189 So. 3d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

McGhee v. State, 847 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.