McKinney v. State
36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 270, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1345, 66 So. 3d 852 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida law, dual convictions for separate statutory offenses arising from a single criminal episode do not violate double jeopardy so long as each offense requires proof of a distinct element the other does not, and the offenses are not explicitly defined by statute as degrees of the same crime.
Facts:
- On September 11, 2007, Bernard Vivandieu picked up a money wire transfer of $290.30 from a Western Union.
- Horace McKinney observed this and followed Vivandieu home.
- In Vivandieu's driveway, McKinney approached him, pointed a gun at his side, and demanded the money.
- Vivandieu initially claimed to have no money.
- McKinney found the money and Vivandieu's cell phone in Vivandieu's car and took both items.
Procedural Posture:
- Horace McKinney was convicted of grand theft and robbery with a firearm in the Orange County trial court.
- McKinney, as the appellant, appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- On appeal, McKinney argued that the dual convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal, as the appellee, affirmed the trial court's convictions.
- The Fifth District certified that its decision was in direct conflict with a decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Shazer v. State.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict between the district courts of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do dual convictions for robbery with a firearm and grand theft, when both charges arise from a single criminal act involving the same property, violate Florida's statutory prohibition against double jeopardy?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Dual convictions for robbery with a firearm and grand theft arising from a single act do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy because they are separate offenses under Florida's strict statutory elements test. Following the precedent set in Valdes v. State, which abandoned the old 'primary evil' analysis, the court must look only at the plain language of the controlling statute, § 775.021(4). This statute permits multiple punishments unless a specific exception applies. Here, no exception is met: 1) the offenses do not have identical elements, as robbery requires proof of 'force, violence, assault, or putting in fear' while grand theft requires proof of a specific property value; 2) they are not 'degrees of the same offense' because the statutes do not explicitly define them as such; and 3) neither is a lesser offense wholly subsumed by the other. Therefore, the Legislature's intent to punish each offense separately must be upheld.
Dissenting - Lewis, J.
Yes. The dual convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because they punish the defendant twice for the same core offense. The majority's rigid application of the Blockburger test, mandated by the wrongly decided Valdes v. State, departs from decades of precedent that properly used a 'core offense/primary evil' analysis to discern legislative intent. Common sense dictates that robbery is merely an aggravated form of theft—that is, theft accomplished through force. Both statutes punish the same primary evil: the deprivation of another's property. The majority's mechanical, text-only approach ignores the fundamental purpose of double jeopardy protection and leads to the absurd result of imposing multiple punishments for a single wrongful act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a significant shift in Florida's double jeopardy jurisprudence, firmly entrenching the strict statutory interpretation established in Valdes v. State. By explicitly rejecting the flexible 'primary evil' or 'core offense' analysis, the court has narrowed the scope of double jeopardy protection in the state. This precedent makes it substantially easier for prosecutors to obtain multiple convictions for a single criminal transaction, so long as the charged offenses are codified in separate statutes with at least one distinct element. The ruling signals that Florida courts are not to look beyond the statutory text to infer legislative intent regarding punishments for related crimes.
