NASIEVE BRADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2005-04-22
No. 5D04-2582
SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.
901 So. 2d 924 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

Dual convictions and sentences for attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery do not violate double jeopardy clauses.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for both attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm for a sin…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
MONACO, J.

MONACO, J.

The appellant, Nasieve Dwight Bradley, appeals the judgment and sentence imposed upon him based on his conviction for several violent crimes. While he raises a number of issues on appeal, we find no error and affirm. One issue involving double jeopardy, however, merits some brief discussion.

Among other crimes, Mr. Bradley was convicted and sentenced for both attempted first degree murder with a firearm,1 and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm2 for a single act of shooting the victim. Mr. Bradley asserts that the dual convictions and sentences violated the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Using the analysis of section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), and Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Florida, 894 So. 2d 941 (Fla.2005), we conclude that because each offense has an element distinct from the other, and one offense is not a “degree variant” of the other, double jeopardy is not offended. See also Gutierrez v. State, 860 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Schirmer v. State, 837 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur. . §§ 782.04(1)(a)1., 775.087(1), 775.087(2)(a)3., and 777.04, Fla. Stat. (2003).

. §§ 784.045(1)(a)1., 775.087(1), and 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (2003).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Newell v. State, 935 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
    …nts of proof, are not degree variants of the same core offense, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon is not always subsumed within the offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. See § 775.021(4) Fla. Stat. (2001). See also Bradley v. State, 901 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 892 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review dismissed, 894 So. 2d 969 (Fla.2005); Gutierrez v. State, 860 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 906 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.2005). The issue involving the convi…
  • …0); Howard v. State, 11 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 836 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Bradley v. State, 901 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). VILLANTI, LUCAS, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.…
  • …“[T]he elements of the two crimes were different because attempted murder requires proof of an act that could have resulted in death, which is not an element required for aggravated battery [causing great bodily harm].”); see also Bradley v. State, 901 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding the defendant’s convictions for both attempted first degree murder with a firearm and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm for a single act of shooting the victim did not violate double jeopardy because each offe…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw