Criminal Investigation

In the second part of your training, you will analyze a closed homicide case in your community or as close to your community as possible. You should have selected a case from Nexis Uniin the Assignment Preparation activity last week.If you have not completed that activity, go back and complete it before continuing with this assignment.In 3–4 pages, summarize the investigation into your selected case. Your analysis should:
Describe the circumstances surrounding the case.
Summarize the key factors that may have been used to classify the type of death and the finding.
Analyze the ways thatvarious environmental factors may have influenced the medical examination and autopsy in this investigation.
Identify the forensic methods that were reported in the investigation and their findings.
This may include methods like DNA, toxicology, hair andfiber evidence, fingerprints, or any other methods which contributed to the investigation.
Recommend one way that the investigators or forensic team could have strengthened their case based on your understanding of it.
Cite three references.
One of your references will be the case recordthat you found from Nexis Uni.
Other references may be news articles that pertain to the case, and other court cases or rules that are referenced in the case.
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements.
criminalJustice
ATTACHED FILE(S)
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2022 LexisNexis

Date and Time: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:16:00 PM EDT
Job Number: 170818673
Document (1)
1. State v. Maisonet-Maldonado, 308 So. 3d 63
Client/Matter: -None-
Search Terms: Vehicular Homicide
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
Cases Timeline: May 07, 2017 to May 10, 2022; Court: Florida
http://www.lexisnexis.com/about-us/
http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/terms/privacy-policy.page
http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/general.aspx
http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&idtype=PID&context=1516831

Positive
As of: May 11, 2022 12:16 AM Z
State v. Maisonet-Maldonado
Supreme Court of Florida
December 10, 2020, Decided
No. SC19-1947
Reporter
308 So. 3d 63 *; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039 **; 45 Fla. L. Weekly S 324
STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JOSE MAISONET-
MALDONADO, Respondent.
Prior History:[**1] Application for Review of the
Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified
Great Public Importance. Fifth District – Case No. 5D18-
942. (Orange County).
Maisonet-Maldonado v. State, 283 So. 3d 862, 2019
Fla. App. LEXIS 15697, 2019 WL 5280876 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 5th Dist., Oct. 18, 2019)
Core Terms
offenses, convictions, homicide, fleeing, eluding, lenity,
legislative intent, vehicular homicide, serious injury,
law enforcement officer, sentence, dual, criminal
offense, vehicular manslaughter, same-elements,
episode, commit, punish, recede, double jeopardy
analysis, serious bodily injury, statutory language,
require proof, superseded, killed
Case Summary
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Defendant’s convictions on three counts
of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement
officer causing serious injury or death, and two counts of
vehicular homicide were not prohibited by the single
homicide rule since the plain meaning of section
775.021, Florida Stat., abolished the single homicide
rule and superseded the Supreme Court of Florida’s
Houser decision, and thus its decision holding
otherwise, the Chapman decision was incorrectly
decided, defendant’s dual convictions were not
prohibited by section 775.021, additionally, none of the
three statutory exceptions in section 775.021(4)(b)
applied to defendant.
Outcome
Decision quashed.
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedent
HN1[ ]Courts, Judicial Precedent
Section 775.021, Florida Stat., supersedes the Supreme
Court of Florida’s decisions establishing the single
homicide rule and that our decision holding otherwise,
the Chapman decision was wrongly decided.
Criminal Law & Procedure > Commencement of
Criminal Proceedings > Double Jeopardy > Appeals
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Standards of
Review > De Novo Review > Conclusions of Law
HN2[ ]Double Jeopardy, Appeals
A double jeopardy claim based upon undisputed facts
presents a pure question of law and is reviewed de
novo.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Procedural Due Process > Double
Jeopardy
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple
Punishments
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc2
https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?id=urn:contentItem:61H8-DKT3-GXF6-D191-00000-00&category=initial&context=1516831
Page 2 of 9

HN3[ ]Procedural Due Process, Double Jeopardy
Both the United States and Florida Constitutions contain
double jeopardy clauses that prohibit subjecting a
person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and
punishments for the same criminal offense. But there is
no constitutional prohibition against multiple
punishments for different offenses arising out of the
same criminal transaction as long as the Legislature
intends to authorize separate punishments. The
prevailing standard is whether the Legislature intended
to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple
Punishments
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Tests for
Double Jeopardy Protection
HN4[ ]Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple
Punishments
Absent an explicit statement of legislative intent to
authorize separate punishments for two crimes,
application of the Blockburger same-elements test
pursuant to section 775.021(4), Florida Stat., is the sole
method of determining whether multiple punishments
are double-jeopardy violations.
Governments > Legislation > Interpretation
HN5[ ]Legislation, Interpretation
A court’s determination of the meaning of a statute
begins with the language of the statute. If the language
of the statute is clear, the statute is given its plain
meaning, and the court does not look behind the
statute’s plain language for legislative intent or resort to
rules of statutory construction.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple
Punishments
Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedent
HN6[ ]Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple
Punishments
The plain meaning of section 775.021, Florida Stat
abolished the single homicide rule and superseded the
Supreme Court of Florida’s Houser decision, and thus
its decision holding otherwise, the Chapman, decision
was incorrectly decided.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple
Punishments
Governments > Legislation > Effect &
Operation > Amendments
HN7[ ]Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple
Punishments
After the 1988 amendment, the plain language of
section 775.021, Florida Stat., clearly expresses that
offenses which pass the codified Blockburger test
should be punished separately and that there is no
exception for offenses arising from a single death.
Accordingly,the 1988 amendment to section 775.021
superseded the Supreme Court of Florida’s Houser
decision, the Court’s Chapman decision holding
otherwise was wrongly decided.
Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedent
HN8[ ]Courts, Judicial Precedent
In evaluating reliance interests, courts consider
legitimate expectations of those who have reasonably
relied on the precedent. It is generally accepted that
reliance interests are at their acme in cases involving
property and contract rights. And reliance interests are
lowest in cases involving procedural and evidentiary
rules. As the United States Supreme Court has
observed, the role of stare decisis is reduced in the
cases of procedural rules that do not serve as a guide to
lawful behavior.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple
Punishments
Governments > Legislation > Interpretation
308 So. 3d 63, *63; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc3
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc4
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc5
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc6
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc7
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc8
Page 3 of 9

HN9[ ]Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple
Punishments
Under the plain meaning of section 775.021(4)(a),
Florida Stat. (1993), a court is required to examine each
of a defendant’s convictions arising out of the same
incident to determine whether each offense requires
proof of an element that the other does not, without
regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced
at trial. A court may not examine the facts of the record
but may only examine the statutory elements of the two
offenses to determine whether one requires proof of an
element that the other does not. Therefore, when
considering a statute that proscribes conduct in the
alternative (offenses that can be committed in more than
one way), the analysis must consider the entire range of
conduct prohibited by the statutes, not the specific
conduct charged or proven at trial.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting
Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Elements
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Vehicular
Crimes > Vehicular Homicide > Elements
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting
Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Penalties
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Acts & Mental
States > Mens Rea > Recklessness
Criminal Law & Procedure > Trials > Burdens of
Proof > Prosecution
HN10[ ]Fleeing & Eluding, Elements
Fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer causing
serious bodily injury or death requires the State to prove
that a defendant: (1) willfully fled or attempted to elude a
law enforcement officer in an authorized vehicle, (2)
drove at a high speed or manner demonstrating a
wanton disregard for persons or property, and (3)
caused serious bodily injury or death to another person.
§ 316.1935(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). Vehicular homicide
requires the State to prove that a defendant killed a
human being by operation of a motor vehicle in reckless
manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm
to, another. § 782.071(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). The
fleeing or eluding offense requires that the defendant be
fleeing a law enforcement officer. Vehicular homicide
requires that defendant kill another human being, which
is not a required element in the fleeing or eluding statute
even though it is sufficient conduct to establish an
element of the crime. Simply put, a defendant can
commit fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or death
without committing vehicular homicide and can commit
vehicular homicide without committing fleeing or
eluding causing serious injury or death.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting
Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Elements
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Vehicular
Crimes > Vehicular Homicide > Elements
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting
Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Penalties
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Homicide,
Manslaughter & Murder > Voluntary
Manslaughter > Elements
HN11[ ]Fleeing & Eluding, Elements
Fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or death
requires proof of an attempt to flee, while vehicular
manslaughter requires proof of death, which is not
necessarily required for the fleeing or eluding offense.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy
Protection > Convictions
HN12[ ]Double Jeopardy Protection, Convictions
If two statutory offenses are found to be separate under
Blockburger, then the lesser offense is not subsumed by
the greater offense.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting
Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Elements
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting
Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Penalties
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Vehicular
Crimes > Vehicular Homicide > Elements
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double
Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple
Punishments
308 So. 3d 63, *63; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc9
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc10
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-MBK1-6SKW-D4GJ-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-1YM1-DXC8-015T-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc11
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc12
Page 4 of 9

HN13[ ]Fleeing & Eluding, Elements
Dual convictions for fleeing or eluding causing serious
injury or death and vehicular manslaughter are not
prohibited by section 775.021(4), Florida Stat.
Counsel: Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit
Agarwal, Solicitor General, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa,
Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for
Petitioner.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, Andrew Mich and
Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defenders, Seventh
Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida, for
Respondent.
Judges: POLSTON, J. CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA,
LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ.,
concur.
Opinion by: POLSTON
Opinion
[*65]POLSTON, J.
This case is before the Court for review of the decision
of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Maisonet-
Maldonado v. State, 283 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA
2019), in which the Fifth District certified the following
question of great public importance:
DOES THE “SINGLE HOMICIDE” RULE FOUND
IN HOUSER V. STATE, 474 SO. 2D 1193 (FLA.
1985), PRECLUDE SEPARATE CONVICTIONS
OF VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND FLEEING AND
ELUDING CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY OR
DEATH THAT INVOLVE THE SAME VICTIM?
Maisonet-Maldonado, 283 So. 3d at 863. For the
reasons explained below, we answer the certified
question in the negative and quash the decision of the
Fifth District.1
I. BACKGROUND
In 2010, Jose Maisonet-Maldonado stabbed his
girlfriend, Berlitz Alvelo, and ran over her with a car,
resulting [**2]in her death. After fleeing the scene,
1 We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Maisonet-Maldonado was quickly pursued by law
enforcement officers. He then led police on a
dangerous, high-speed chase that ended when he
crashed into another vehicle. The vehicle’s driver,
James Laconte, sustained serious injuries, while the
vehicle’s passengers, Amanda Taylor and Francesca
Jeffrey, were killed.
A jury convicted Maisonet-Maldonado of one count of
first-degree murder with a weapon for the murder of Ms.
Alvelo, three counts of fleeing or attempting to elude a
law enforcement officer causing serious injury or death,
and two counts of vehicular homicide. Amanda Taylor
and Francesca Jeffrey were each named as the victim
for one count of fleeing and eluding causing serious
bodily injury or death and one count of vehicular
manslaughter. Maisonet-Maldonado’s convictions were
upheld by the Fifth District in 2014. Maisonet-
Maldonado v. State, 149 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
In 2016, Maisonet-Maldonado filed a postconviction
motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.850, alleging, among other things, that his convictions
for vehicular homicide and fleeing or eluding a law
enforcement officer causing serious injury or death
violated the constitutional prohibition against double
[*66]jeopardy. Noting that each offense
contained [**3]a unique element, the lower court
denied Maisonet-Maldonado’s motion. Maisonet-
Maldonado appealed.
On appeal, the Fifth District concluded that Maisonet-
Maldonado’s convictions were prohibited under the
single homicide rule, which prohibits dual convictions
for a single homicide under two different statutes.
Relying on our decision in Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d
1193 (Fla. 1985), the Fifth District held that the single
homicide rule “prohibits his convictions . . . for
vehicular homicide and fleeing and eluding causing
serious injury or death that involve the same victim.”
Maisonet-Maldonado, 283 So. 3d at 862. Accordingly,
the Fifth District reversed the postconviction order and
certified the question currently before us.
II. ANALYSIS
HN1[ ] Because the statutory language of section
775.021, Florida Statutes (2010), clearly states the
intent of the Legislature to punish each available offense
and does not provide an exception for offenses arising
from a single death, we conclude that section 775.021
supersedes our decisions establishing the single
homicide rule and that our decision holding otherwise,
308 So. 3d 63, *63; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=LNHNREFclscc13
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-NB51-6YGC-3555-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:6268-2X51-DYB7-W0S7-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:6268-2X51-DYB7-W0S7-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5X99-HC71-DXWW-22SW-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
Page 5 of 9

State v. Chapman, 625 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1993), was
wrongly decided.2 Accordingly, we recede from
Chapman, answer the certified question in the negative,
and quash the Fifth District’s decision in Maisonet-
Maldonado.
A. Double Jeopardy Principles and the Single
Homicide [**4]Rule
HN3[ ] “As this Court has explained, both the United
States and Florida Constitutions contain double
jeopardy clauses that ‘prohibit[ ] subjecting a person to
multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for
the same criminal offense.'” State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d
914, 917 (Fla. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting
Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 2009)). But
“there is no constitutional prohibition against multiple
punishments for different offenses arising out of the
same criminal transaction as long as the Legislature
intends to authorize separate punishments.” Valdes, 3
So. 3d at 1070. “The prevailing standard . . . is whether
the Legislature ‘intended to authorize separate
punishments for the two crimes.'” Id. (quoting Gordon v.
State, 780 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla. 2001), receded from on
other grounds by Valdes, 3 So. 3d at 1077).
HN4[ ] “‘[A]bsent an explicit statement of legislative
intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes,
application of the Blockburger [v. United States, 284
U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932)] “same-
elements” test pursuant to section 775.021(4), Florida
Statutes[,] is the sole method of determining whether
multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.'”
Shelley, 176 So. 3d at 917 (alterations in original)
(quoting Gaber v. State, 684 So. 2d 189, 192 (Fla.
1996)).
Section 775.021(4) provides:
(4)(a) Whoever, in the course of one criminal
transaction or episode, commits an act or acts
which constitute one or more separate criminal
offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt,
shall be sentenced separately for each
criminal [**5]offense; and the sentencing judge
may order the sentences to be served concurrently
or consecutively. For the purposes of this
2 HN2[ ] “A double jeopardy claim based upon undisputed
facts presents a pure question of law and is reviewed de
novo.” Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 2006).
subsection, offenses are separate if each offense
requires proof of an element that the other does
not,[*67]without regard to the accusatory
pleading or the proof adduced at trial.
(b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and
sentence for each criminal offense committed in the
course of one criminal episode or transaction and
not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in
subsection (1) to determine legislative intent.
Exceptions to this rule of construction are:
1. Offenses which require identical elements of
proof.
2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense
as provided by statute.
3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory
elements of which are subsumed by the greater
offense.
§ 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (2010). “The statute expresses
the legislative intent that defendants be charged with
every offense that arises out of one criminal episode
unless an exception applies.” Gil v. State, 118 So. 3d
787, 792 (Fla. 2013). “Subsections (b)(1)-(3) have been
described as setting forth ‘exceptions to the Blockburger
same-elements test,’ Gaber, 684 So. 2d at 192,
because even if the offenses are separate under that
test, dual convictions are barred if the offenses meet the
criteria [**6]in one of the exceptions.” State v. Florida,
894 So. 2d 941, 945 n.2 (Fla. 2005), receded from on
other grounds by Valdes, 3 So. 3d at 1077.
In Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193, 1196-97 (Fla.
1985), this Court held that convictions for DWI
manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter were
prohibited under double jeopardy principles, despite
being separate offenses under a Blockburger analysis.
Observing that the codified Blockburger test was only a
“tool[ ] of statutory interpretation,” the Houser Court
established what would come to be known as the single
homicide rule, that dual convictions for offenses
resulting from a single death were prohibited in Florida.
Id. at 1196. The Court concluded that it should “resolve[
] all doubts in favor of lenity” and follow the presumption
that the Legislature did not intent to punish a single
homicide under two different statutes. Carawan v.
State, 515 So. 2d 161, 170 (Fla. 1987) (describing
Houser). This Court later reaffirmed the single homicide
rule in Carawan, in which it held that dual punishments
for attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery
arising from a single act were similarly prohibited. Id.
Embracing the rule of lenity in the context of double
jeopardy, the Carawan Court found that “Florida’s lenity
308 So. 3d 63, *66; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **3
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc3
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3X2-8T6X-731X-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3X2-8T6X-731X-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-NB51-6YGC-352N-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5G97-MXW1-F04F-R01S-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5G97-MXW1-F04F-R01S-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:42DR-MDK0-0039-421K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:42DR-MDK0-0039-421K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc4
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D290-003B-7443-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D290-003B-7443-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5G97-MXW1-F04F-R01S-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc2
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4MMK-VXV0-0039-40R5-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:58W0-RSB1-F04F-R0HS-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:58W0-RSB1-F04F-R0HS-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4FH7-5SP0-0039-448R-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4FH7-5SP0-0039-448R-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRM-XGV0-003D-X0JB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRM-XGV0-003D-X0JB-00000-00&context=1516831
Page 6 of 9

requirement constitute[d] a rule of construction coequal
to the Blockburger test codified in section 775.021(4)”
and reconciled the two by [**7]concluding that the rule
of lenity prevailed “where there [was] a reasonable basis
for concluding the legislature did not intent multiple
punishments.” Id. at 168.
The Legislature, however, disagreed with our decision in
Carawan and, in 1988, enacted an amendment to
section 775.021, Florida Statutes, to clarify that the
principle of lenity should not be applied in a double
jeopardy analysis. Ch. 88-131, § 7, Laws of Fla. (“The
intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for
each criminal offense committed in the course of one
criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the
principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to
determine legislative intent.”); State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d
613, 616-17 (Fla. 1989) (explaining the 1988
amendment changes). Nonetheless, in Chapman, when
addressing whether the Legislature’s disavowal of
Carawan and the principle of lenity affected the single
homicide rule, this Court concluded that the 1988
amendment did not supersede Houser and that the
single homicide rule was still the law in Florida. 625 So.
2d at 839 (“We see nothing more in the 1988
amendment than that it was intended to[*68]limit the
rule of lenity and to override [Carawan]. Especially, we
do not read the amendment as an overruling of Houser .
. . .” (citations omitted)). Faced with a plain reading of
section 775.021, however, [**8]we now conclude
otherwise.
HN5[ ] “A court’s determination of the meaning of a
statute begins with the language of the statute.” Halifax
Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. State, 278 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla.
2019) (citing Lopez v. Hall, 233 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla.
2018)). If the language of the statute is clear, “the
statute is given its plain meaning, and the court does not
‘look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative
intent or resort to rules of statutory construction.'” Id.
(quoting City of Parker v. State, 992 So. 2d 171, 176
(Fla. 2008)). For the following reasons, we conclude that
HN6[ ] the plain meaning of section 775.021, Florida
Statutes, abolished the single homicide rule and
superseded our decision in Houser, and thus our
decision holding otherwise, Chapman, was incorrectly
decided.
First, subsection (4)(a) expresses the intent of the
Legislature that the text of the statutory offense, not the
facts of the crime, are relevant for a double jeopardy
analysis. See Gaber, 684 So. 2d at 190 (“Thus, we
cannot examine facts from the record . . . . Rather our
double-jeopardy analysis must look only to the statutory
elements . . . .”). The subsection states that “[w]hoever,
in the course of one criminal transaction or episode,
commits an act or acts which constitute one or more
separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and
adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for
each criminal offense.” § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010)
(emphasis added). Further it [**9]states that the
question of whether offenses are separate should be
determined “without regard to the accusatory pleading
or the proof adduced at trial.” Id. After the 1988
amendment, the language of the statute specifically
addresses a circumstance in which one criminal act
constitutes more than one offense and makes clear that
the Legislature intends to punish each available offense.
Subsection (4)(a) rejects the “single underlying act”
principle that had been previously employed to deduce
legislative intent for the purposes of a double jeopardy
analysis and clarifies that statutory language is the only
factor for determining whether the Legislature intended
to punish separate offenses. See also Valdes, 3 So. 3d
at 1072-74 (rejecting the “primary evil” or “core offense”
approach previously taken by this Court in interpreting
section 775.021(4)(b)(2)). This textual change is
incompatible with the single homicide rule because the
single homicide rule requires a judge to look at the
factual circumstances of the crime to determine whether
the convictions arise from the same death.
Second, the Legislature clearly stated its intent to
convict for all offenses that pass the Blockburger test
and rejected the principle of lenity as it applies to double
jeopardy [**10]analysis in the text of subsection (4)(b),
undermining the reasoning of the Houser Court.
Specifically, the amended language states that “[t]he
intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for
each criminal offense committed in the course of one
criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the
principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to
determine legislative intent.” This language conflicts with
the Houser Court’s conclusion that “Florida courts have
repeatedly recognized that the legislature did not intend
to punish a single homicide under two different
statutes.” See Chapman, 625 So. 2d at 839-40 (quoting
Houser, 474 So. 2d at 1197). Further, as we have
explained, the Houser decision and resulting single
homicide rule were rooted in principles of lenity. See
Carawan, 515 So. 2d at 170 (“Finding no[*69]
legislative intent to the contrary, we therefore resolved
all doubts in favor of lenity.”) (summarizing Houser). But
in the 1988 amendment to section 775.021, the
Legislature provided clear language to the contrary and
rejected the application of lenity in double jeopardy
308 So. 3d 63, *67; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **6
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRM-XGV0-003D-X0JB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-2DP0-003F-34FB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-2DP0-003F-34FB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc5
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5VX9-2321-JFDC-X03K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5VX9-2321-JFDC-X03K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5VX9-2321-JFDC-X03K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5RCT-9HN1-FK0M-S40M-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5RCT-9HN1-FK0M-S40M-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TGW-N1M0-TX4N-G1NF-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TGW-N1M0-TX4N-G1NF-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc6
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRM-XGV0-003D-X0JB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
Page 7 of 9

analysis.
Finally, subsection (4)(b) gives three exceptions to the
Blockburger same-elements test, none of which
recognizes the single homicide rule. The statute states
that these exceptions “are” the exceptions to the same-
elements test and [**11]does not use terms of
expansion like “include” or “are not limited to,” so we
can conclude from the text that this list is exhaustive. Cf.
White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla.,
LLC, 226 So. 3d 774, 781 (Fla. 2017) (concluding that
“includes” introduces a nonexhaustive list). Exceptions 1
and 3 give specific exclusions based on the elements of
proof needed for an offense, which can vary depending
on the type of homicide offense. Exception 2 provides
for offenses that are degrees of one another and only
prohibits dual convictions for a single death for offenses
that are explicitly designated as degree variants or
aggravated forms of one another. Valdes, 3 So. 3d at
1075-76. None of these exceptions grants a general
protection against multiple convictions for offenses
arising from a single death, and because the list is
exhaustive, we may not add an exception where the text
does not provide for one.
HN7[ ] After the 1988 amendment, the plain language
of section 775.021 clearly expresses that offenses
which pass the codified Blockburger test should be
punished separately and that there is no exception for
offenses arising from a single death. Accordingly, we
conclude that the 1988 amendment to section 775.021
superseded our decision in Houser, and our decision in
Chapman holding otherwise was wrongly decided.
A conclusion [**12]that a predecessor Court has erred,
however, does not end our analysis. As we have
explained, “[w]hen we are convinced that a precedent
clearly conflicts with the law we are sworn to uphold,
precedent normally must yield. . . . But once we have
chosen to reassess a precedent and have come to the
conclusion that it is clearly erroneous, the proper
question becomes whether there is a valid reason why
not to recede from that precedent.” State v. Poole, 292
So. 3d 694, 713 (Fla. 2020). “The critical consideration
ordinarily will be reliance.” Id.
HN8[ ] In evaluating reliance interests, courts consider
“legitimate expectations of those who have reasonably
relied on the precedent.” Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct.
1390, 1415, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J.,
concurring in part). “It is generally accepted that reliance
interests are ‘at their acme in cases involving property
and contract rights.'” Poole, 292 So. 3d at 713 (quoting
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828, 111 S. Ct.
2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991)). “And reliance interests
are lowest in cases . . . ‘involving procedural and
evidentiary rules.'” Id. (quoting Payne, 501 U.S. at 828).
“As the Supreme Court has observed, the role of stare
decisis is reduced in the cases of procedural rules . . .
that do not ‘serve as a guide to lawful behavior.'” Knight
v. State, 286 So. 3d 147, 154 (Fla. 2019) (quoting
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 521, 115 S. Ct.
2310, 132 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1995)).
In this case, Maisonet-Maldonado and other defendants
who might benefit from the single homicide rule have
minimal [**13]reliance interests in the Chapman
decision. Maisonet-Maldonado does not claim to have
changed his behavior based on the existence of the
single homicide rule, nor does it appear that he has
changed any legal positions to his detriment in reliance
[*70]on the rule. Accordingly, we now recede from
State v. Chapman, 625 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1993), and hold
that the 1988 amendment to section 775.021, Florida
Statutes, superseded Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193
(Fla. 1985), and that the single homicide rule is no
longer applicable under Florida law.
B. This Case
Proceeding to the facts at hand, we must address
whether Maisonet-Maldonado’s dual convictions for
vehicular manslaughter and fleeing or eluding causing
serious injury or death are prohibited under the same-
elements test codified in section 775.021(4), Florida
Statutes. We conclude that they are not prohibited and
quash the decision of the Fifth District.
Maisonet-Maldonado contests his dual convictions for
fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer causing
serious injury or death under section 316.1935(3)(b),
Florida Statutes (2010), and vehicular manslaughter
under section 782.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010).
Section 316.1935(3)(b) makes it a first-degree felony to
flee a law enforcement officer and drive in a wanton
manner and cause serious bodily injury or death to
another person:
(3) Any person who willfully flees or attempts to
elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized
law enforcement [**14]patrol vehicle, with agency
insignia and other jurisdictional markings
prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and
lights activated, and during the course of the fleeing
or attempted eluding:
308 So. 3d 63, *69; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **10
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5PGD-5041-F04F-R0JB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5PGD-5041-F04F-R0JB-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc7
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5Y21-2511-F27X-628V-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5Y21-2511-F27X-628V-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc8
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5YPS-6P91-JGHR-M37B-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5YPS-6P91-JGHR-M37B-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5Y21-2511-F27X-628V-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S65-KRB0-003B-R07F-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S65-KRB0-003B-R07F-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S65-KRB0-003B-R07F-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5XSJ-2S01-F361-M3HK-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5XSJ-2S01-F361-M3HK-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S0D-H4W0-003B-R24K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S0D-H4W0-003B-R24K-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-MBK1-6SKW-D4GJ-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-MBK1-6SKW-D4GJ-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-1YM1-DXC8-015T-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-MBK1-6SKW-D4GJ-00000-00&context=1516831
Page 8 of 9

. . . .
(b) Drives at high speed, or in any manner which
demonstrates a wanton disregard for the safety of
persons or property, and causes serious bodily
injury or death to another person, including any law
enforcement officer involved in pursuing or
otherwise attempting to effect a stop of the person’s
vehicle, commits a felony of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or
s. 775.084. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the court shall sentence any person convicted
of committing the offense described in this
paragraph to a mandatory minimum sentence of 3
years imprisonment. Nothing in this paragraph shall
prevent a court from imposing a greater sentence of
incarceration as authorized by law.
§ 316.1935(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010).
Section 782.071(1)(a) establishes vehicular homicide
as a second-degree felony:
“Vehicular homicide” is the killing of a human
being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to
the mother, caused by the operation of a motor
vehicle by another in a reckless manner
likely [**15]to cause the death of, or great bodily
harm to, another.
(1) Vehicular homicide is:
(a) A felony of the second degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
§ 782.071(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010).
HN9[ ] “Under the plain meaning of section
775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), a court is
required to examine each of a defendant’s convictions
arising out of the same incident to determine whether
‘each offense requires proof of an element that the other
does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or
the proof adduced at trial.'” Gaber, 684 So. 2d at 190
(quoting § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993)). A court may
not examine the facts of the record but may only
examine the statutory elements of the two offenses to
determine whether one requires proof of an element that
the other does not. Id. at 190-91. Therefore, “when
considering a statute that proscribes conduct in the
alternative (offenses that can be committed in more than
one way), the analysis must consider[*71]the entire
range of conduct prohibited by the statutes, not the
specific conduct charged or proven at trial.” Tambriz-
Ramirez v. State, 248 So. 3d 1087, 1094 (Fla. 2018)
(quoting Tambriz-Ramirez v. State, 213 So. 3d 920, 923
(Fla. 4th DCA 2017)).
Maisonet-Maldonado’s dual convictions are not
prohibited by section 775.021, Florida Statutes. HN10[
] Fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer causing
serious bodily injury or death requires the State to prove
that a defendant (1) willfully fled or attempted [**16]to
elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized vehicle,
(2) drove at a high speed or manner demonstrating a
wanton disregard for persons or property, and (3)
caused serious bodily injury or death to another person.
§ 316.1935(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). Vehicular homicide
requires the State to prove that a defendant (1) killed a
human being (2) by operation of a motor vehicle in
reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great
bodily harm to, another. § 782.071(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
(2010). The fleeing or eluding offense requires that the
defendant be fleeing a law enforcement officer.
Vehicular homicide requires that defendant kill another
human being, which is not a required element in the
fleeing or eluding statute even though it is sufficient
conduct to establish an element of the crime. Simply
put, a defendant can commit fleeing or eluding causing
serious injury or death without committing vehicular
homicide and can commit vehicular homicide without
committing fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or
death. See Tambriz-Ramirez, 248 So. 3d at 1095 (“In
other words, one can commit a burglary with a battery
without committing an attempted sexual battery.”).
Additionally, none of the three statutory exceptions in
section 775.021(4)(b) apply to Maisonet-Maldonado’s
offenses. First, [**17]the fleeing or eluding offense and
vehicular manslaughter do not require identical
elements of proof. HN11[ ] Fleeing or eluding causing
serious injury or death requires proof of an attempt to
flee, while vehicular manslaughter requires proof of
death, which is not necessarily required for the fleeing
or eluding offense. Second, the offenses are clearly not
degree variants of each other because they do not
share a common name, contain very different formal
elements, and exist in completely different chapters of
Florida Statutes. See Valdes, 3 So. 3d at 1075-76
(holding that the second exception only applies when a
criminal statute itself provides for an offense with
multiple degrees). HN12[ ] Finally, because these two
offenses satisfy the Blockburger same-elements test,
the third exception does not apply because, as we
explained in Gaber, “[i]f two statutory offenses are found
to be separate under Blockburger, then the lesser
offense is not subsumed by the greater offense.” 684
So. 2d at 192.
308 So. 3d 63, *70; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **14
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-MBK1-6SKW-D4GJ-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-1YM1-DXC8-015T-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8VW8-RYY2-8T6X-72JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:6302-CCG3-GXJ9-30V2-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8VRD-X4W2-D6RV-H1RK-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-1YM1-DXC8-015T-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc9
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5SSK-6NC1-F27X-60SP-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5SSK-6NC1-F27X-60SP-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5N0C-TVK1-F07Y-0007-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5N0C-TVK1-F07Y-0007-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc10
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-MBK1-6SKW-D4GJ-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-1YM1-DXC8-015T-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5SSK-6NC1-F27X-60SP-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc11
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4VHH-BM90-TXFS-91RC-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc12
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D290-003B-7443-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-13B0-003F-31KD-00000-00&context=1516831
Page 9 of 9

III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we recede from State v.
Chapman, 625 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1993), and hold that this
Court’s decision in Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193
(Fla. 1985), establishing the single homicide rule, was
superseded by section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1988).
HN13[ ] Accordingly, we conclude that dual
convictions for fleeing or eluding causing serious
injury [**18]or death and vehicular manslaughter are
not prohibited by section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes,
answer the certified question in the negative, quash the
Fifth District’s decision in Maisonet-Maldonado, and
remand for proceedings consistent with our decision.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ,
COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
End of Document
308 So. 3d 63, *71; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **17
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RX4-1NY0-003F-3554-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61GN-N9D1-JKHB-644M-00000-00&context=1516831&link=clscc13
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5CHS-BX01-DXC8-03JD-00000-00&context=1516831
State v. Maisonet-Maldonado
Reporter
Prior History
Bookmark_para_1
Core Terms
Case Summary
Overview
Bookmark_clspara_2
Outcome
Bookmark_clspara_3
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Bookmark_clscc1
Bookmark_hnpara_1
Bookmark_clscc2
Bookmark_hnpara_2
Bookmark_clscc3
Bookmark_hnpara_3
Bookmark_clscc4
Bookmark_hnpara_4
Bookmark_clscc5
Bookmark_hnpara_5
Bookmark_clscc6
Bookmark_hnpara_6
Bookmark_clscc7
Bookmark_hnpara_7
Bookmark_clscc8
Bookmark_hnpara_8
Bookmark_clscc9
Bookmark_hnpara_9
Bookmark_clscc10
Bookmark_hnpara_10
Bookmark_clscc11
Bookmark_hnpara_11
Bookmark_clscc12
Bookmark_hnpara_12
Bookmark_clscc13
Bookmark_hnpara_13
Counsel
Judges
Opinion by
Opinion
Bookmark_para_2
Bookmark_para_3
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0010000400
Bookmark_I61HNT4K2SF7NG0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0010000400
Bookmark_para_4
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0010000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0040000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0020000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0010000400_3
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0040000400_3
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0020000400_3
Bookmark_I61HWY9J2HM63W0050000400
Bookmark_para_5
Bookmark_fnpara_1
Bookmark_para_6
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0020000400
Bookmark_para_7
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0050000400
Bookmark_82DP3SH93S000016W100001
Bookmark_3DMN12W58G0000226F00001
Bookmark_I61HWY9K2D6NGJ0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9M2SF8370010000400
Bookmark_para_8
Bookmark_I61HWY9M2SF8370040000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc1
Bookmark_I4W75MD93DR00001BCT00001
Bookmark_I3DPMCSDCXY000021VW00001
Bookmark_para_9
Bookmark_I61HWY9M2N1R7C0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7H0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7J0010000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc3
Bookmark_I61HWY9M2N1R7C0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7H0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7H0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7H0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7J0020000400
Bookmark_para_10
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7J0050000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc4
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2N1R7J0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2D6NH10010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2D6NH10030000400
Bookmark_para_11
Bookmark_para_12
Bookmark_fnpara_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9M2N1R7C0030000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc2
Bookmark_I61HWY9M2N1R7C0020000400
Bookmark_para_13
Bookmark_para_14
Bookmark_para_15
Bookmark_para_16
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2N1R7R0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2N1R7R0010000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2N1R7R0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9N2D6NH10050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2N1R7R0030000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2N1R7R0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2N1R7R0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P28T48S0010000400
Bookmark_para_17
Bookmark_I61HWY9P28T48S0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P28T48S0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P28T48S0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0030000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0050000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9P2SF83S0040000400
Bookmark_para_18
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64P0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64P0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64P0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64P0030000400
Bookmark_para_19
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64S0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64S0050000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc5
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64P0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64S0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9R2HM64S0040000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc6
Bookmark_para_20
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHB0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHB0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHB0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHB0030000400
Bookmark_para_21
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHC0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHC0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHB0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHC0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHC0050000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHC0040000400
Bookmark_para_22
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2HM64T0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2HM64T0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2HM64T0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2HM64T0040000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2HM64T0030000400
Bookmark_para_23
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc7
Bookmark_para_24
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2SF8400010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2HM64T0050000400
Bookmark_para_25
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2SF8400030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2SF8400050000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc8
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2SF8400020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHG0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2SF8400040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHG0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2SF8430010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2SF8430010000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHG0040000400_2
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHG0030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9S2D6NHG0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2SF8430020000400
Bookmark_para_26
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2SF8430050000400
Bookmark_41PRKH0BPX000021MH00001
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2SF8430040000400
Bookmark_I41PMX21SXS00000YT800001
Bookmark_para_27
Bookmark_para_28
Bookmark_para_29
Bookmark_para_30
Bookmark_para_31
Bookmark_para_32
Bookmark_para_33
Bookmark_para_34
Bookmark_para_35
Bookmark_para_36
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2N1R880040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2D6NHN0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2D6NHN0030000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc9
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2N1R880030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9T2N1R880050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2D6NHN0020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2D6NHN0040000400
Bookmark_para_37
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc10
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2HM6550020000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2HM6550010000400
Bookmark_para_38
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2HM6550040000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc11
Bookmark_I55SCV1KJM100005Y7G0001K
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2N1R8B0010000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2HM6550030000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2N1R8B0010000400_2
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc12
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2N1R8B0010000400_3
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2HM6550050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2N1R8B0020000400
Bookmark_para_39
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2N1R8B0050000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2N1R8B0040000400
Bookmark_I61HWY9V2SF8490010000400
Bookmark_LNHNREFclscc13
Bookmark_para_40
Bookmark_para_41

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more