M.P. v. State, 95-675
| Decision Date | 22 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-675,95-675 |
| Citation | 662 So.2d 1359 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2569 M.P., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Richard R. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, and Paul Savage, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
M.P. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency. We affirm.
M.P. was adjudicated delinquent for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1993), and possession of a firearm by a minor in violation of section 790.22(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). Both charges related to the same weapon and arose from the same incident.
We hold that the dual adjudications do not violate M.P.'s constitutional right not to be placed in double jeopardy. In determining the constitutionality of dual punishments for two offenses arising from the same criminal transaction, the dispositive question is whether the legislature "intended to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes." Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1145, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981); see also Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977) (); State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989) (same). When the Florida legislature enacted section 790.22(3), it specifically articulated its intent to punish possession of a firearm by a minor in addition to other firearm-related offenses by providing that "[t]he provisions of this section are supplemental to all other provisions of law relating to the possession, use, or exhibition of a firearm." Sec. 790.22(7), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994) (emphasis added). On that basis alone, the dual adjudications pass constitutional muster.
Furthermore, each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not; they are thus considered separate offenses for the purpose of a double jeopardy analysis. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also, Gaber v. State, 662 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Smith, 547 So.2d at 616. Although the two offenses share the common element of possession of a firearm, each statute addresses separate societal evils; each contains a unique prohibition. Section 790.01 prohibits concealment of a weapon; section 790.22(3) prohibits possession of a firearm by a minor.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.P. v. State
...L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, for Respondent. HARDING, Justice. We have for review the decision in M.P. v. State, 662 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the opinions in M.P.C. v. State, 659 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 5th D......
-
State v. Maxwell
...review Maxwell v. State, 666 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in M.P. v. State, 662 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Daniel K. Maxwell was convicted o......
-
K.W. v. State
...illegal possession of a firearm by a minor. However, the district court certified the same conflict that it certified in M.P. v. State, 662 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). K.W., 665 So.2d at In M.P., the district court certified conflict with the opinions in A.J.H. and M.P.C. on the double j......
-
K.W. v. State, 95-1573
...weapon and illegal possession of a firearm do not violate K.W.'s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. See M.P. v. State, 662 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Finding no merit in the other issues raised, the adjudication of delinquency is affirmed in all respects. We certify to t......