Jahman Whitfield v. State
202 So. 3d 456
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Whitfield convicted after jury trial of rape, kidnapping, strangulation (domestic battery by strangulation, count four), and battery on a person 65 or older (count six), among other charges.
- Both counts four and six are third-degree felonies and are aggravated forms of simple battery under Florida law.
- Whitfield filed a petition under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d) alleging appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal that dual convictions violated double jeopardy.
- The State argued dual convictions can sometimes stand if based on distinct conduct, but did not identify distinct acts or seek jury instructions differentiating the conduct for the two counts.
- The Fifth District found appellate counsel deficient for not raising the double jeopardy issue and concluded the dual convictions for counts four and six violated double jeopardy.
- Remedy: because count four is higher-scoring for sentencing purposes, the court vacated the conviction and sentence for count six and remanded for postconviction proceedings; all other claims denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for domestic battery by strangulation (count 4) and battery on a person 65+ (count 6) violate double jeopardy | Whitfield: both crimes are aggravated forms of simple battery and thus are different degrees of the same offense; dual convictions violate double jeopardy | State: dual convictions can be permissible if based on distinct conduct; here it asserted potential distinctions but did not identify separate acts or seek jury instructions | Held: Violates double jeopardy because both are higher-degree forms of simple battery and no distinct conduct was alleged or instructed; dual convictions invalid |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the double jeopardy issue on direct appeal | Whitfield: counsel’s omission was a serious deficiency because the issue was potentially meritorious | State: argued dual convictions could be valid if distinct conduct shown; did not overcome that counsel should have raised the issue | Held: Appellate counsel’s failure to raise the double jeopardy issue constituted ineffective assistance; postconviction relief granted in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 113 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (held convictions for aggravated forms of battery and specialty battery violated double jeopardy)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (statutory prohibition on convictions for different degrees of the same offense)
- Delgado v. State, 174 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (granting relief where appellate counsel failed to raise double jeopardy on appeal)
- State v. Drawdy, 136 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2014) (double jeopardy analysis recognizing dual convictions may be permissible if based on distinct conduct)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Benjamin v. State, 77 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (remedy for double jeopardy is vacation of one conviction)
- Binns v. State, 979 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same)
- Anthony v. State, 108 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (vacatur of convictions barred by double jeopardy)
- Dill v. State, 79 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (standard for evaluating appellate counsel omissions)
- King v. State, 15 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (failure to raise meritorious issues on appeal can warrant new appeal)