Drawdy v. State
Decision Date | 05 September 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 2D10–3347.,2D10–3347. |
Citation | 98 So.3d 165 |
Parties | Eric J. DRAWDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen M. Grogoza, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dawn A. Tiffin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Eric Drawdy appeals his convictions and sentences for sexual battery of a child and for lewd or lascivious molestation. See§§ 794.011(1)(h), (8)(b); 800.04(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). Double jeopardy bars conviction for both offenses committed in a single criminal episode. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Accordingly, the law compels us to reverse in part.
The following statutory provisions apply:
§ 794.011 Sexual battery.—
(1)(h) “Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object
....
....
(8) Without regard to the willingness or consent of the victim, which is not a defense to prosecution under this subsection, a person who is in a position of familial or custodial authority to a person less than 18 years of age and who:
....
(b) Engages in any act with that person while the person is 12 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age which constitutes sexual battery under paragraph (1)(h) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
....
§ 800.04(5) Lewd or lascivious molestation.—
(a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.
Mr. Drawdy raped his young teenage stepdaughter. While doing so, he touched her breasts. A jury convicted Mr. Drawdy of sexual battery. The jury also convicted him of lewd or lascivious molestation for touching the breasts. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for the sexual battery, followed by five years of probation for the molestation. Mr. Drawdy argues that his convictions violate double jeopardy and constitute fundamental error. See Avila v. State, 86 So.3d 511, 513 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) .
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution “prohibit [ ] subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense.” Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1069 (Fla.2009). The double jeopardy guarantee restrains courts and prosecutors. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). The legislature remains free to define crimes and fix punishments; “but once the legislature has acted courts may not impose more than one punishment for the same offense....” Id. at 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221. Of course, double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple punishments for different offenses arising from the same criminal episode “as long as the Legislature intends to authorize separate punishments.” Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1069. “[T]he role of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments arising from a single criminal act.” Hayes v. State, 803 So.2d 695, 699 (Fla.2001) (quoting Brown, 432 U.S. at 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221);Claps v. State, 971 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Double jeopardy poses no concern where separate convictions arise from separate criminal episodes. See Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (). Typically, criminal acts occur in separate criminal episodes where there are multiple victims, multiple locations, a temporal break between acts, or where the perpetrator forms a new criminal intent between acts. Hayes, 803 So.2d at 700–01 (citing Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559, 560–61 (Fla.1951)); Murray v. State, 890 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Staley v. State, 829 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Here, we have a single victim, a single location, and no temporal break between the sexual battery and the lewd or lascivious molestation. Recall that the acts occurred simultaneously. Under these circumstances, we face a single criminal episode.
Where multiple convictions arise from a single episode, a court must determine whether the offenses constitute single or distinct acts. Blockburger aids in that determination. “[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180. “[T]he Florida sexual battery statutes are particularly susceptible to the distinct acts exception because the statutes ‘may be violated in multiple, alternative ways....' ” Partch, 43 So.3d at 761 (quoting Saavedra v. State, 576 So.2d 953, 956–57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).
Separate convictions for more than one type of sexual battery described in section 794.011 in a single episode do not violate double jeopardy; each battery is of a separate character and type that requires a different element of proof. Saavedra, 576 So.2d at 957 (); accord Schwenn v. State, 898 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). See, e.g., Duke v. State, 444 So.2d 492, 493–94 (Fla. 2d DCA), aff'd,456 So.2d 893 (Fla.1984) ( ); Grunzel v. State, 484 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ( ); Bass v. State, 380 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) ( ). In each of these cases, the distinct acts were committed sequentially. See Schwenn, 898 So.2d at 1132 ( ).
Although appellate courts affirmed separate convictions for more than one type of sexual battery in a single episode, they did not do the same for section 800.04(4) lewd or lascivious batteries, despite the fact that the prohibited acts of oral, anal, or vaginal penetration or union were the same as those in the sexual battery statute. See, e.g., Capron v. State, 948 So.2d 954, 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ( ). To this point, the evolving judicial interpretation of sections 794.011 and 800.04 precluded conviction for both sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation in the same episode. State v. Meshell, 2 So.3d 132, 133 (Fla.2009), changed the landscape, extending the exception for distinct acts of sexual battery to the different types of lewd or lascivious battery identified in section 800.04(4) because the elements were the same. Meshell upheld dual convictions for lewd or lascivious battery—by penetration or union with the victim's vagina and by penetration or union with the victim's mouth in the same episode—“[b]ecause the oral sex described in Count 3 is a criminal act distinctively different from the vaginal penetration or union in Count 1....” Id. at 136;see also, e.g., Schuster v. State, 17 So.3d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ( ); State v. Gonzalez, 24 So.3d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ( ). Meshell, of course, involved section 800.04(4), and its holding did not extend to section 800.04(5), the statute under which the State charged Mr. Drawdy. See Meshell, 2 So.3d at 134 ( ); Brown v. State, 25 So.3d 78, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ( ).
Historically, sexual battery subsumed acts of lewd or lascivious molestation in the same episode. We have held that double jeopardy precluded convictions for both. See Johnson v. State, 913 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ( ). Similarly, we have held that double jeopardy precluded conviction for a lewd or lascivious molestation in the same episode as a lewd or lascivious battery. See, e.g., Johnson, 913 So.2d at 1291–92 ( ); Gisi v. State, 909 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ( ). Some courts reasoned that the defendant could not form a new criminal intent for acts involving simultaneous offenses. See, e.g., Leyva v. State, 925 So.2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Drawdy
...Respondent.QUINCE, J. This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Drawdy v. State, 98 So.3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Ap......
-
Webb v. State
...with lewd and lascivious molestation, so we decline to analyze whether each touching constituted a distinct act. See Drawdy v. State, 98 So.3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that “[t]he apparent trend [of analyzing distinct acts in sexual battery cases] has not reached far enough to deem d......
-
Sanders v. State
...lascivious molestation arising out of the defendant both touching the victim and forcing the victim to touch him. But cf. Drawdy v. State, 98 So.3d 165, 171, n. 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (certifying conflict with Roberts and citing Brown for the proposition that “[t]he apparent trend [in the pos......
-
Pickel v. State
...do not violate double jeopardy as each offense contains an element the other lacks). We certify conflict with Drawdy v. State, 98 So.3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), review granted,116 So.3d 1263 (Fla.2013), regarding application of the Blockburger2 same elements test to the offenses of sexual ba......