GARY B. NELAMS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1992-05-08

No. 91-724

GOSHORN, C.J., and COBB, J., concur., COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

597 So. 2d 967 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1992) Positive Treatment

Cited by 2 cases

Topics

Burglary With A Battery Attempted Sexual Battery Battery Burglary

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burglary With A Battery cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See State v. Foreman, 476 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1985); Wicker v. State, 462 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1985).

GOSHORN, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissent

COWART, Judge,

dissenting.

During the course of a burglary the defendant attempted to commit a sexual battery on an occupant. There was but one touching (battery) of one person. The de fendant was charged in one count with burglary with a battery (§ 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat.) and in a second count with attempted sexual battery (§§ 777.04; 794.011(5), Fla. Stat.) and convicted of both counts.

On appeal the defendant argues that attempted sexual battery is subsumed1 within the charge and conviction of burglary with a battery, citing Bradley v. State, 540 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Spradley v. State, 537 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

In Bradley and Spradley, it was held that charging and convicting for burglary with a battery and simple battery as to a single factual event violates the federal and state constitutional double jeopardy clauses.

Burglary is a first degree felony if “in the course of committing” the burglary offense, the offender commits a battery upon any person. § 810.02(2)(a), Fla.Stat. This court in Bradley explained that because the enhanced burglary charge includes within it the offense of simple battery, the conviction for first degree burglary includes within it a “conviction” for battery so that constitutional double jeopardy principles prohibit a second separate battery conviction for the same battery that supports the conviction for burglary with a battery.

The analysis in Bradley v. State, applies to the facts in this case and requires a reversal of the attempted sexual battery conviction and sentence. Sexual battery is but one special species of battery and Bradley holds that when only one battery has occurred during a burglary, the defendant cannot, in effect, be convicted twice of the battery offense by being convicted of the double-based (two core) or compound2 offense of burglary with a battery and also convicted again for the battery as a separate offense. It matters not in this case that the separate offense is a specific type of battery, being a sexual battery, because a battery is a battery is a battery. In addition, of course, every attempted crime (the attempted sexual battery here) is a necessarily lesser included offense of the crime which was attempted (§ 777.04, Fla. Stat.). In this case the battery (in the burglary with a battery offense of which the defendant was convicted) included the attempted sexual battery offense charged. There was only one battery accomplished and it was the State’s position that it was committed as part of the burglary charged as well as part of the attempt to commit a sexual battery, also charged.

The affirmance in this case of two battery convictions for conduct consisting of but one battery constitutes a direct conflict with Bradley and a violation of the defendant’s double jeopardy constitutional rights.3

. See § 775.021(4)(b)3., Fla.Stat. (1988), and State v. Rodriguez, 500 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1986) (Shaw, J., concurring).

. See the extended discussion of a compound offense in the context of a double jeopardy identity of offense problem contained in the separate opinion in Foster v. State, 596 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), involving theft offenses yoked with offenses involving violence against a person.

.See Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Burns v. State, 651 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)

…appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion is affirmed without prejudice. Appellant may file an amended motion, in compliance with Rule 3.850(c)(3), that states “whether a previous posteonviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many.” See Daniels v. State, 597 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Evans v. State, 388 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Moreover, several of the allegations in Appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion are legally insufficient. If Appellant files an amended 3.850 petition, he shall file claims that meet th…
Lindsey v. State, 627 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)

…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED without prejudice to refile a motion per Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.860, which complies with that rule. See Daniels v. State, 597 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Siegel v. State, 586 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1990)
State v. Rodriquez, 500 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1986)
Bradley v. State, 540 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
Cleveland Spradley, Jr. v. State, 537 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
Wicker v. State, 462 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1985)
State v. Foreman, 476 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1985)
Rubin v. NEW Sunrise Inv. Corp., 596 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
Foster v. State, 596 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw