Thomas v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. State

    223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that examination of separate criminal episodes for double jeopardy purposes should encompass entire evidentiary record rather than just charging document and verdict form

    First, in some cases ostensibly involving separate criminal episodes or distinct acts, the courts appear to have proceeded directly to the third step of the double jeopardy analysis without examining whether the offenses arose from separate criminal episodes or distinct acts. See, e.g. , Thomas v. State , 209 So.3d 35, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (concluding, despite evidence at trial of "increasingly lurid text messages and communications" over the course of four days, that appellant's convictions for traveling and solicitation violated double jeopardy by examining only the charging documents and without analyzing whether his convictions were based on distinct acts of solicitation); Stapler v. State , 190 So.3d 162, 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (finding a double jeopardy violation despite evidence of multiple acts of solicitation, and expressly declining to consider any information outside of the charging document). Those courts should have applied the three-step analysis outlined in Paul and Partch and determined whether the convictions in those cases arose from a single criminal episode or whether the convictions were based on distinct acts before proceeding to the same elements test.

  2. Lee v. State

    258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that the fact the defendant was a physician who contributed to the community and was highly valued by his patients was an invalid reason to depart

    This holding is in conflict with decisions from the Second and Fifth District Courts of Appeal. SeeThomas v. State , 209 So.3d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; Honaker v. State , 199 So.3d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ; Stapler v. State , 190 So.3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ; Holt v. State , 173 So.3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; and Mizner v. State , 154 So.3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We have jurisdiction.