Holliday v. State, 5D00-185.

Decision Date30 March 2001
Docket NumberNo. 5D00-185.,5D00-185.
Citation781 So.2d 496
PartiesJohn Lewis HOLLIDAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jeffrey L. Dees, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

John Holliday appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court upon his plea of no lo contendere to the charges of armed robbery with a firearm and attempted first degree murder. The charges arose out of an incident which occurred on December 17, 1996 when Holliday walked into a gas station, brandished a handgun, and demanded money from the store clerk. After receiving money from the clerk, he took off running. When the clerk started to chase him, Holliday stopped, turned, and fired the gun at the clerk. He contends that the entry of convictions on both charges constitutes a double jeopardy violation1 because the offenses occurred during a single criminal episode. We disagree and therefore affirm Holliday's judgments and sentences.2

In Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17, 19 (Fla.2001), our Supreme Court recently explained that the standard for "determining the constitutionality of multiple convictions for offenses arising from the same criminal transaction is whether the Legislature `intended to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes.'" Id. (quoting M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla. 1996)). Stated another way, courts must not look to either the accusatory pleading or proof adduced at trial in determining this issue, but rather, must look only at whether the legislature intended for the courts to impose separate convictions and sentences for the crimes at issue when they are committed during the course of one criminal episode. Brown v. State, 617 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), aff'd, 633 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1994).

Section 775.021(4)(b) of the Florida Statutes (1995) sets forth Florida's legislative intent regarding this issue as follows:

775.021. Rules of construction
* * *
(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.

Thus, Florida courts are authorized to impose a separate conviction and sentence for each offense committed during the course of a single criminal episode. However, the Legislature set forth a limitation upon this rule of construction; namely, that the imposition of multiple convictions and sentences is prohibited if the offenses at issue fall within any of three listed exceptions. The three exceptions are: (1) when the offenses require identical elements of proof; (2) when the offenses are degree variants of the same core offense; and (3) when the greater offense necessarily includes the lesser offense. See § 775.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). See also Gordon; State v. McCloud, 577 So.2d 939 (Fla.1991). This statutory analysis reveals no bar to the imposition of separate convictions and sentences for the offenses of armed robbery with a firearm and attempted first degree murder when they are committed during the course of a single criminal episode.

The elements of the crime of attempted first degree murder are: (1) an act intending to cause death that went beyond just thinking or talking about it; (2) a premeditated design to kill; and (3) the commission of an act which would have resulted in the death of the victim except that someone prevented the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Cannon v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 24 de setembro de 2015
    ...also includes the requirement that the stolen property be "of some value." Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 15.1; see Holliday v. State, 781 So.2d 496, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). However, the State is not required to prove an exact value for the property taken. See McKinney v. State, 66 So.3d 85......
  • Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 31 de março de 2021
    ...the victim except that someone prevented the defendant from killing the victim or the defendant failed to do so." Holliday v. State, 781 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The Florida Supreme Court has further explained that "[p]remeditation is defined as 'a fully-formed conscious purpose......
  • Johnson v. State, 4D02-4163.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 de novembro de 2004
    ...where defendant picked up weapon dropped by officer, pointed weapon at officer, and then squeezed trigger); Holliday v. State, 781 So.2d 496, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (concluding that defendant committed attempted first-degree murder, by stopping, turning, and firing gun at store clerk, as c......
  • Rios v. State, 5D99-3270.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 de agosto de 2001
    ...of Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). Double jeopardy rights are fundamental and can be raised at any time. Holliday v. State, 781 So.2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). It is well established that convictions for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault, arising from a single act, are......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT