Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Defense Attorney Makes Successful Double Jeopardy Challenge
August 17, 2009
Topic: Criminal
In Cross v. State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1376a (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), a defense attorney challenged the trial court’s denial of a motion for post conviction relief. One of the arguments was based on a double jeopardy violation.
The defendant was arrested when he robbed a business and stole an employee’s car as he left the store. Based on those actions, the State charged him with two counts: armed robbery of a business and grand theft. However, at trial, the defense argued that these charges could not be brought and that the defendant could not be punished for both crimes pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause, found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The protections provided by the Double Jeopardy Clause are very specific, and most people misunderstand them. Whether it is the result of Hollywood influence or some other source, people often believe that it offers more protection than it really does. Believe it or not, the Double Jeopardy Clause seldom applies in any given case. However when it does apply, it not only protects a defendant from being prosecuted for the same crime twice, but also from being punished twice.
The double jeopardy analysis involves three factors: 1) whether separate victims are involved, 2) whether the crimes occurred in separate locations, and 3) whether there has been a temporal break between the incidents. These factors are applied to every case when a challenge is made. In the instant case, the defense claimed that the robbery and car theft were part of one ongoing crime and the court agreed. The crimes were part of a continuous episode and constituted a single action for double jeopardy purposes. As such, the defendant’s sentences for those crimes had to be reversed.
Double jeopardy challenges are difficult to successfully argue, and you need a skilled attorney if you are facing charges that you feel violate your Constitutional rights. Our attorneys have years of experience handling these types of cases from both sides of the aisle. Contact Arnold & New today, so we can put our experience to work for you.
