State of Florida v. Eric J. Drawdy, 136 So. 3d 1209

Drawdy sexually assaulted his teenage stepdaughter, including vaginal penetration and touching of breasts during the act.
He was charged with one count of sexual battery under §794.011(8)(b) and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation under §800.04(5)(a) (2006).
A jury convicted Drawdy on both counts and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years for sexual battery followed by 5 years of probation for molestation.
The Second District held that double jeopardy barred both convictions in a single criminal episode and reversed/remanded to vacate the molestation conviction, certifying conflict with Roberts and Murphy.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the two convictions could stand without violating double jeopardy, and whether conflicting district court interpretations should be harmonized.
Key authorities discussed include Blockburger, Meshell, Hayes, and other Florida double jeopardy precedents distinguishing distinct acts from a single episode.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars the two convictions.	State argues distinct acts warrant multiple punishments.	Drawdy contends the acts were the same continuous episode and not distinct.	Not barred; the acts are distinct criminal acts.
Whether touching breasts during vaginal penetration constitutes a separate act for double jeopardy purposes.	State asserts touching constitutes a separate criminal act beyond the sexual act.	Drawdy argues the touching is part of the same act.	Touching breasts during penetration is a separate act with different elements.

State v. Meshell, 2 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2009) (distinct acts may warrant multiple punishments when offenses are of separate character)
Hayes v. State, 803 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2001) (distinct acts within a single episode may permit multiple convictions)
State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2006) (Blockburger applies to determine permissible multiple punishments)
Beahr v. State, 992 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (discussed distinction of acts for double jeopardy in Beahr framework)
Roberts v. State, 39 So.3d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (confirms multiple convictions for distinct acts; conflicts with Drawdy)
Murphy v. State, 49 So.3d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (rejects double jeopardy challenge to multiple offenses arising from same general conduct)
Roughton v. State, 92 So.3d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (pending review noted; discussed double jeopardy framework)
Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (double jeopardy principles and de novo review framework)