Roughton v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11396
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Roughton was convicted of sexual battery on a person under twelve and lewd or lascivious molestation of a victim under twelve.
- The convictions arose from the same underlying act; the State concedes this fact.
- Roughton argues the two convictions violate double jeopardy.
- The case requires applying the Blockburger same-elements test to determine whether there is legislative intent to punish separately and whether each offense has an element the other does not.
- The court compares the elements of lewd or lascivious molestation and sexual battery and finds they are distinct, with different required elements and bodily focus.
- The court affirms both convictions, declines to merge them, and certifies conflict with several other district court decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy for same-act convictions? | Roughton argues the two offenses violate double jeopardy. | State concedes same act but argues no double jeopardy violation. | No double jeopardy; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test governs multiple convictions from one act)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (legislative intent to punish separately governs conviction scope)
- Berlin v. State, 72 So.3d 284 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (First DCA on double jeopardy involving sexual battery and lewd molestation)
- Smith v. State, 41 So.3d 1041 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (dual offenses arising from same act; double jeopardy considerations)
- Robinson v. State, 919 So.2d 623 (Fla.2d DCA 2006) (double jeopardy precludes both offenses from single act)
- Surace v. State, 378 So.2d 895 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (intent element distinctions relevant to double jeopardy)
- Roberts v. State, 39 So.3d 372 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (comparing lewd/molestation and sexual battery elements)