State of Florida v. Timothy W. Tuttle, Jr.
177 So. 3d 1246
| Fla. | 2015Background
- Home invasion resulting in death; Tuttle prosecuted for second-degree murder (with firearm), attempted first-degree home-invasion robbery (with firearm causing death or great bodily harm), and first-degree armed burglary. Jury convicted Tuttle of manslaughter with a firearm, attempted home-invasion robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary.
- Trial court vacated the attempted home-invasion robbery conviction (a second-degree felony) and left the armed burglary conviction (a first-degree felony punishable more severely); State asked court to vacate the attempted-robbery conviction; Tuttle argued the armed burglary conviction must be vacated.
- Second District reversed: applying Pizzo’s elements test, it held armed burglary is the lesser offense (its elements are subsumed by attempted home-invasion robbery) and therefore should be vacated.
- State sought review, arguing conflict with several district decisions that had vacated the greater offense when it carried a lighter sentence than the lesser offense.
- Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether, when elements-test labels an offense “lesser” but that offense carries a harsher punishment, courts must still vacate the offense defined as "lesser" under Pizzo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tuttle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which conviction must be vacated to remedy double jeopardy when two convictions overlap under the elements (Blockburger/Pizzo) test but the offense labeled "lesser" carries a greater punishment? | Trial court and State: court has discretion to vacate the conviction that results in the lesser punishment impact; State asked vacatur of the statutory lesser (attempted robbery) because it carried a lower sentence in this case. | Tuttle: apply Pizzo elements test; the statutory lesser offense (armed burglary) must be vacated regardless of relative punishments. | Court held the statutory lesser offense as defined by Pizzo (the offense whose elements are subsumed) must be vacated even if it carries a higher punishment than the greater offense; affirmed Second District. |
| Does post‑verdict judicial vacatur to remedy double jeopardy infringe prosecutorial charging discretion? | State: vacatur rule would impair prosecutorial discretion to secure and maintain convictions and sentencing on properly charged counts. | Tuttle: judicial remedy for double jeopardy is appropriate and does not invade charging discretion; prosecutor’s charging power does not entitle retention of overlapping convictions post‑verdict. | Court rejected the State’s prosecutorial‑discretion argument, holding the remedy is a judicial function to cure double jeopardy violations. |
| Whether Pizzo’s elements-only test governs which conviction is "lesser" despite anomalous sentencing outcomes. | State: Pizzo did not address the anomalous situation where the lesser offense carries greater punishment; trial court should have discretion. | Tuttle: Pizzo controls; elements-only comparison determines the lesser offense for vacatur. | Court read §775.021(4)(b)3. with Pizzo and held elements-only determination controls; legislative text supports vacating the statutory lesser. |
| Whether existing district court decisions (Johnson, Davis, Olivera, Washington) conflict with rule affirmed here. | State: urged conflict and sought reversal of Tuttle. | Tuttle: relied on Second District precedent Schulterbrandt and Pizzo. | Court approved Second District in Tuttle and disapproved the contrary district decisions to the extent they conflict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (adopting elements-only test for identifying the lesser offense under double jeopardy)
- State v. Barton, 523 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1988) (directing that when dual convictions are impermissible the lesser conviction should be set aside)
- Donovan v. State, 572 So.2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (comparing statutory elements to identify lesser offense)
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1985) (government may prosecute overlapping statutes but conviction and punishment for both may violate double jeopardy; remedy by vacatur)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (double jeopardy protects against multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same offense)
- Griffin v. State, 69 So.3d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (post‑verdict vacatur of a count can cure a double jeopardy concern)