State v. Rothwell, 1D06-5713.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D06-5713.,1D06-5713. |
| Citation | 981 So.2d 1279 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Richard Lawrence ROTHWELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Carolyn Mosley and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bill White, Public Defender, and Brian D. Morrissey, Assistant Public Defender, Yulee, for Appellee.
The state appeals an order dismissing a felony battery charge that was being prosecuted after the appellant had been found to be in contempt of court for violating a domestic violence injunction which prohibited the appellant from committing various acts of violence against the battery victim. In dismissing the felony battery charge the court ruled that the prosecution is precluded by principles of double jeopardy, in that the contempt was predicated on the same battery. However, the contempt and the felony battery each require proof of an element the other does not, and the felony battery prosecution does not violate double jeopardy protections and that charge should not have been dismissed.
The domestic violence injunction was intended to keep the appellant from committing certain acts of violence, with battery specifically being listed as one of the prohibited acts. In the contempt order it was found that the appellant had violated the injunction by committing such a battery. That adjudication was entered in a manner which made it a criminal contempt, as described in Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977). Double jeopardy protections pertain upon that type of contempt, as indicated in cases such as Richardson v. Lewis, 639 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). However, double jeopardy does not necessarily preclude a separate criminal prosecution for felony battery in that this is a question of legislative intent, as to whether the legislature has authorized the subsequent prosecution in these circumstances. See e.g. M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79 (Fla.1996); see also Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983).
The Florida legislature has stated its intent in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes. That enactment provides for convictions and sentences on multiple offenses arising from one incident if each offense requires proof of an element the other does not, and except for crimes which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute or when one of the crimes is a lesser offense of the other and the statutory elements are subsumed by the greater offense. See § 775.021(4)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. Application of the section 775.021(4) standard has resulted in criminal contempt adjudications and convictions for related substantive offenses being allowed when the substantive offense is not subsumed within the act of contempt. See State v. Johnson, 676 So.2d 408 (Fla.1996); Richardson, supra. On the other hand, when the elements of the substantive offense are entirely subsumed within an adjudication or conviction for violation of an injunction, separate convictions for the substantive offenses have been precluded under section 775.021(4). See Doty v. State, 884 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Young v. State, 827 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). This focus on the elements of the offense, rather than the conduct involved, likewise pertains under the Supreme Court's decision in Dixon, supra. See also State v. Miranda, 644 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
The appellant's contempt adjudication required proof that he violated the injunction order, with the particular violation being based on the commission of a battery as defined in section 784.03(1), Florida Statutes. The existence of the injunction, and the appellant's knowledge of that order, were necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dolan v. State
-
Harris v. State
...felony 190 So.3d 89 battery contains an element that battery does not—the existence of a prior conviction. See State v. Rothwell, 981 So.2d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“The prior battery conviction is a necessary element of th[e felony battery] offense.” (citing R.R. v. State, 920 So.2d......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...order. The elements of contempt and felony battery are different, and each contains an element to other does not. State v. Rothwell, 981 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) The court errs following defendant’s release from jail and upon entry into community control, in holding a “dangerousness”......
-
Crimes
...order. The elements of contempt and felony battery are different, and each contains an element to other does not. State v. Rothwell, 981 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) When defendant is convicted of aggravated battery by causing great bodily harm, the second-degree felony can be reclassifi......