Harris v. State
111 So. 3d 922
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Harris appeals convictions for felony battery and battery, arguing double jeopardy violations related to a single continuous battery episode.
- The State charged felony battery (Count I) and domestic battery by strangulation (Count II).
- Trial evidence showed a single altercation beginning on a patio and continuing to the yard, including grabbing, restraining, nose/mouth contact, choking, and a clavicle injury.
- The jury convicted Harris of felony battery (Count I) and battery (Count II), with sentence for felony battery and separate probation for the lesser offense.
- Harris argues the convictions arise from a single uninterrupted episode and that battery is subsumed by felony battery, creating double jeopardy; the State contends acts were six distinct actions in a single episode and sufficiently separate.
- The court holds that the acts were a single continuous battery and, under §775.021(4), the lesser offense is subsumed, requiring vacatur of Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars both convictions for one continuous battery | Harris: one continuous episode; sentences improper | State: six distinct acts; no double jeopardy | Yes; Count II vacated due to subsumption under felony battery. |
| Whether §775.021(4) allows separate punishment for offenses from one episode when elements differ | Harris: lesser offense subsumed | State: elements distinguish acts | Yes; third exception applies, leading to vacatur of the lesser offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (double jeopardy limitations in single episodes)
- Hayes v. State, 803 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2001) (distinct acts may support multiple convictions; or statutory separation allows multiple punishments)
- State v. Barton, 523 So.2d 152 (Fla.1988) (offenses with elements subsumed by greater offense barred under 775.021(4))
- Olivard v. State, 831 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (acts in one continuous event; no temporal separation)
- Gresham v. State, 725 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (uninterrupted sequence viewed as single act for purposes of double jeopardy)
- Saavedra v. State, 576 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (location changes do not always create separate acts)