McKinney v. State
66 So. 3d 852
| Fla. | 2011Background
- McKinney robbed Bernard Vivandieu at gunpoint, taking money ($290.30) and Vivandieu’s cell phone; the money was recovered from between car seats.
- McKinney was convicted of grand theft (section 812.014) and robbery with a firearm (section 812.13(2)(a)) for the same episode.
- Sentences: grand theft with 237 days in jail, and a 25-year robbery with firearm sentence (10 years minimum).
- On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed, certifying conflict with the Fourth District’s Shazer decision; the Florida Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court relied on Valdes v. State to analyze double jeopardy under Florida’s multiple-punishment framework and disapproved Shazer.
- The dissent argued Valdes was misapplied and that grand theft and robbery with a firearm are the same-evil of taking property, constituting double punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether robbery with a firearm and grand theft are punishable separately under 775.021(4)(b)(2). | McKinney—these offenses are degrees of the same offense. | State—statutory scheme allows separate punishments. | No; offenses are not degrees of the same offense; 4(b)(2) applies only to degree variants. |
| Whether 775.021(4)(b)(1) bars separate punishment when offenses share elements. | McKinney contends elements overlap to create one offense. | State—elements are distinct; no subsumption. | Inapplicable; each offense requires an element the other does not (force vs. property value). |
| Whether Valdes controls and permits double punishment, contrary to Shazer. | McKinney relies on Valdes to authorize separate punishments. | State urges Shazer alignment with prior Florida precedent. | Valdes controls; disapprove Shazer; two offenses may yield separate punishments when not expressly degrees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla.2009) (adopts Cantero’s approach; prohibits separate punishments only for offenses that are degrees of the same offense, under 775.021(4)(b)(2))
- State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167 (Fla.2006) (special concurrence guiding interpretation of double jeopardy exceptions)
- Ingram v. State, 928 So.2d 1262 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (informs that theft is a permissive lesser included offense of robbery with a deadly weapon)
- Shazer v. State, 3 So.3d 453 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (aprises the conflict with Valdes; later disapproved by Florida Supreme Court)
- Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987) (Blockburger and lenity guiding construction of double jeopardy)
- Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17 (Fla.2001) (early double-jeopardy framework before Valdes)
- Paul, State v., 934 So.2d 1167 (Fla.2006) (Cantero concurrence cited in Valdes)