Bradham v. StateBradham v. State
On September 28, 1993, appellant knocked his victim from her bicycle and carried her into nearby woods where he beat and raped her. He was charged with and convicted of kidnapping during which an aggravated battery was committed, contrary to sections
Section
To determine for double jeopardy purposes whether offenses are separate criminal offenses, the court must look only at the statutory elements of the offenses. See State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613, 616 (Fla. 1989) (“[T]he statutory element test shall be used for determining whether offenses are the same or separate.“). The legislature has declared that “offenses are separate if each criminal offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.”
Appellant‘s second double jeopardy claim, that aggravated battery is a lesser offense subsumed by the crime of sexual battery, fails. First, sexual battery requires a sexual attack, but aggravated battery does not. Hipp v. State, 509 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Second, aggravated battery requires proof of the actual infliction of great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, which is not an element of sexual battery. These disparate elements evidence that these are separate offenses. Id.
The separate conviction for aggravated battery is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing and correction of the judgment. The judgment, sentence, and sentencing scoresheet should clearly reflect that appellant was not only convicted of kidnapping to facilitate a felony under section
ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.
BENTON, J., concurs in result.