Williams v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9995
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant was convicted of attempted premeditated first‑degree murder, attempted felony murder, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- The State sought convictions based on a single attempted killing by Appellant at the victim’s location.
- Appellant’s conviction for attempted felony murder is challenged on double jeopardy and merger grounds.
- Trial evidence showed Appellant retrieved a pistol, pursued the victim, and fired multiple shots within a short time frame in the apartment complex area.
- The court’s analysis distinguishes standard double jeopardy from the merger doctrine and concludes merger bars dual convictions for the same attempted killing.
- The result is reversal of the attempted felony murder conviction with directions to strike; other convictions remain affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars multiple convictions for the same attempted killing. | Appellant (State) argues separate offenses based on different statutory elements. | Appellant contends offenses arise from separate acts or episodes. | Not violated under standard double jeopardy analysis; merger applies. |
| Whether merger prohibits dual convictions for attempted premeditated first‑degree murder and attempted felony murder from the same attempted killing. | State relies on merger as exception to multiple punishments. | Appellant argues no single killing under merger doctrine. | Merger precludes dual punishment; strike attempted felony murder conviction. |
| Whether Blockburger and statutory exceptions permit both convictions despite merger. | Blockburger test supports separate elements. | Merger overrides even if Blockburger passes. | Blockburger satisfied; however, merger precludes both convictions for same killing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (analyze same episode vs distinct acts in double jeopardy)
- State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167 (Fla.2d DCA 2006) (factors for same criminal episode (temporal break, location, multiple victims))
- Murray v. State, 890 So.2d 451 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (tenor of episode factors in same offense analysis)
- Jones v. State, 569 So.2d 1234 (Fla.1990) (distinguishes same-evil analysis; not controlling for merger here)
- Goodwin v. State, 634 So.2d 157 (Fla.1994) (merger principle applied to homicide convictions)
- Houser v. State, 474 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1985) (one homicide conviction may be imposed for single death)
- Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17 (Fla.2001) (merger considerations in homicide context)
- Deangelo v. State, 863 So.2d 374 (Fla.1st DCA 2003) (merger-applied to attempted murder offenses)
- Smith v. State, 973 So.2d 1209 (Fla.2d DCA 2008) (discusses merger vs standard double jeopardy)
- Jackson v. State, 868 So.2d 1291 (Fla.4th DCA 2004) (merger analysis for attempted murder offenses)