State v. Hegstrom, No. 59893

CourtFlorida Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtENGLAND; SUNDBERG
Citation401 So.2d 1343
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Dennis Andrew HEGSTROM, Respondent.
Decision Date30 July 1981
Docket NumberNo. 59893

Page 1343

401 So.2d 1343
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Dennis Andrew HEGSTROM, Respondent.
No. 59893.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 30, 1981.

Page 1344

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Peter Raben, Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for respondent.

ENGLAND, Justice.

In State v. Pinder, 375 So.2d 836 (Fla.1979), we held that the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution prohibits multiple convictions and punishments in the same trial for both first-degree murder and the underlying felony from which the murder results. Following our directive, the Third District Court of Appeal vacated Dennis Hegstrom's conviction and sentence for the underlying felony of robbery in a felony murder case. 1. The state asks that we reconcile differing applications of Pinder, 2 and that we reconsider it in light of two subsequent double jeopardy decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980); Albernaz v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (U.S.1981).

Preliminarily, we dispose of the state's suggestion that the district court should be reversed inasmuch as Hegstrom's conviction can be sustained on the basis of premeditated, rather than felony, murder. 3 Were we do so, of course, the double jeopardy issue raised by Pinder would not be reached, let alone resolved. We categorically decline to accept the case for review on one basis and then reweigh the evidence, once reviewed by the district court, in order to avoid a ruling on the legal issue which provoked our jurisdiction. As the 1980 constitutional amendment to our jurisdiction made clear, we will not provide a second record review of cases already resolved by the district courts of appeal. 4 We take this case as we find it with respect to factual determinations, and the Third District Court of Appeal found no evidence of premeditation.

At issue here is the constitutionality of multiple punishments in a single trial setting for discrete crimes arising out of the same offense. In the felony-murder setting of Pinder, we held that the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment barred the imposition of cumulative convictions and punishments for both felony murder and the underlying felony in a single criminal proceeding. We based this decision on our interpretation of Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97

Page 1345

S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), two cases forbidding the imposition of cumulative punishments for the same offense in successive prosecutions. An extension of Brown and Harris to a single trial setting seemed natural in light of those and other Supreme Court decisions. 5 Many other states reached the same conclusion. 6 We now have the benefit of a more refined analysis of double jeopardy by the Supreme Court.

In Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), the Supreme Court reiterated earlier pronouncements that double jeopardy protects "not only against a second trial for the same offense, but also 'against multiple punishments for the same offense.' " Id. at 688, 100 S.Ct. at 1436 (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)). Whalen emphasized, however, that Congress defines offenses and determines the proper punishment for multiple offenses arising from a single criminal episode. Applying the double jeopardy test first announced in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the Court concluded that Congress did not intend cumulative punishments for rape and murder committed during the course of rape because the conviction of the felony murder offense could not be had without proving the lesser included offense of rape. In the absence of a clear contrary legislative intent, the Blockburger test must be met before multiple punishments are permissible. Under Blockburger, the same act violates two statutes only if "each (statutory) provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Id. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182.

In Albernaz v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (U.S.1981), the Court ruled that double jeopardy did not bar the imposition of cumulative sentences for conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though one transaction gave rise to both offenses. Relying on Whalen, the dispositive question was whether the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 practice notes
  • Jones v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:13-cv-470-J-39JBT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 9 Noviembre 2015
    ...prosecutions or from imposing multiple punishments for a single, legislatively defined offense.'") (quotingPage 15 State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 1981)). As we recognized in Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17 (Fla. 2001):The prevailing standard for determining the constitutionalit......
  • Baker v. State, No. 80-748
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 8 Diciembre 1982
    ...Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (1981), either under Category 1 or Category 2 thereof. In the case of State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981), the Florida Supreme Court, based on its consideration of two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 2 receded from i......
  • Rodriquez v. State, No. 82-570
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 15 Diciembre 1983
    ...court sentenced Rodriquez only on the robbery count, presumably on the authority of the extant rule at that time of State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981). Rodriquez raises three points on appeal: the trial court's denial of proffered impeachment evidence, the trial court's denial of ......
  • Bundy v. State, No. 59128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 9 Mayo 1985
    ...test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) applies. We agree. In State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla.1981), this Court noted that in the absence of a clear contrary legislative intent the Blockburger test must be met before mult......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
107 cases
  • Jones v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:13-cv-470-J-39JBT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 9 Noviembre 2015
    ...prosecutions or from imposing multiple punishments for a single, legislatively defined offense.'") (quotingPage 15 State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 1981)). As we recognized in Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17 (Fla. 2001):The prevailing standard for determining the constitutionalit......
  • Baker v. State, No. 80-748
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 8 Diciembre 1982
    ...Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (1981), either under Category 1 or Category 2 thereof. In the case of State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981), the Florida Supreme Court, based on its consideration of two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 2 receded from i......
  • Rodriquez v. State, No. 82-570
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 15 Diciembre 1983
    ...court sentenced Rodriquez only on the robbery count, presumably on the authority of the extant rule at that time of State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981). Rodriquez raises three points on appeal: the trial court's denial of proffered impeachment evidence, the trial court's denial of ......
  • Bundy v. State, No. 59128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 9 Mayo 1985
    ...test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) applies. We agree. In State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla.1981), this Court noted that in the absence of a clear contrary legislative intent the Blockburger test must be met before mult......
  • 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