Hernandez v. State, 92-01317
| Decision Date | 15 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-01317,92-01317 |
| Citation | 624 So.2d 782 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2057 Jose P. HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tonja R. Vickers, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sue R. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Jose P. Hernandez appeals a conviction for indirect criminal contempt. We conclude that the conviction for criminal contempt violates double jeopardy because the state had already prosecuted Mr. Hernandez for battery and for violation of an injunction for protection, which two offenses were the foundation for the contempt charge. Accordingly, we reverse this conviction.
On January 3, 1992, Mr. Hernandez went to the victim's home, grabbed her by the throat, and threatened to get her "out of the way." Prior to that date, the victim had obtained an injunction for protection against repeat domestic violence by Mr. Hernandez. As a result of this conduct, Mr. Hernandez was convicted on February 4, 1992, in county court of battery and violation of an injunction for protection and was sentenced to six months in the county jail. Sec. 741.31, Fla.Stat. (1991). 1
On January 23, 1992, the state also filed a petition for order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt against Mr. Hernandez in circuit court. The petition was based on a complaint affidavit, charging Mr. Hernandez with the same battery and violation of an injunction for protection. At a hearing in circuit court on February 14, 1992, Mr. Hernandez filed a motion to dismiss the indirect criminal contempt charge based on double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Mr. Hernandez pleaded no contest and received a thirty-day jail sentence, concurrent with his six-month jail term. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
The subsequent indirect criminal contempt conviction was based solely on the violation of the injunction and the battery, offenses for which Mr. Hernandez had already been convicted. At the time of Mr. Hernandez's convictions, there was some confusion regarding what constituted a "successive prosecution" for the same offense which would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990). This was particularly true when one conviction involved a substantive offense and the other a contempt of court. The Supreme Court has recently receded from Grady and its "same conduct" test. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Bentley
...this determination, however, the court must be mindful of the implications of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., Hernandez v. State, 624 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND CERTIFIED Like the supreme court, we too "recognize the extreme importance of having domestic vi......
-
State v. Mertz
...other criminal prosecution. United States v. Dixon, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). See also Hernandez v. State, 624 So.2d 782 (Fla.Ct.App.1993). However, because both a civil and criminal sanction may be constitutionally imposed with respect to the same act or omissi......
-
Alex Diaz De La Portilla v. State
...of court arising out of” the same violation of law. See N.T. v. State, 682 So.2d 688, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Hernandez v. State, 624 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[S]uccessive prosecution for indirect criminal contempt in this case violatesthe Double Jeopardy Clause” if based on sub......
-
Fierro v. State, 93-1952
...double jeopardy thus barred the subsequent prosecution for aggravated stalking. Appellant also cites as authority Hernandez v. State, 624 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), in which the court concluded a conviction for indirect criminal contempt violated double jeopardy because appellant had alr......