Monsanto v. StateMonsanto v. State
The primary point on appeal is the challenge to defendant‘s conviction for the possession and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, here, a kidnapping. We reverse.
The defendant was convicted of kidnapping,
We must vacate the conviction for possession of a firearm while committing a felony based on the supreme court‘s decision in Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987). Carawan states that when an accused is charged under two statutory provisions that manifestly address the same evil and no clear evidence of legislative intent exists, the most reasonable conclusion is that the legislature did not intend to impose multiple punishments for the same act. Id. at 168. In this case, even though the convictions for the two offenses charged required proof of different facts and thus met the elements of the Blockburger test,1 the court‘s inquiry into the legislature‘s intent does not end there. According to Carawan, multiple punishments in such cases “are presumed to be authorized in the absence of a contrary legislative intent or any reasonable basis for concluding that a contrary intent existed.” Id. at 168 (emphasis in original).
This result also mandates that the defendant‘s sentence for armed kidnapping be vacated with directions that he be resentenced within the guidelines without including points for conviction of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
Reversed and remanded.