Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Roughton v. State
Citations: 92 So. 3d 284; 2012 WL 2864380; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11396Docket: No. 5D11-652
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 13, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court
James Roughton appeals his convictions for sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation of a victim under twelve, arguing that both convictions violate his constitutional protections against double jeopardy since they arise from the same act. The State acknowledges the convictions are based on the same act but contends they do not violate double jeopardy principles. The court affirms the convictions, employing a de novo standard of review for the legal determination of double jeopardy. The court clarifies that the key issue is whether the Florida Legislature intended to permit separate punishments for these offenses, referencing the Blockburger "same elements" test. Florida courts exhibit differing interpretations regarding whether these two offenses possess distinct elements. The Fourth District Court concludes that each offense contains an element not found in the other, thus permitting both convictions without double jeopardy violations, while the First and Second District Courts hold the opposite view. Specifically, lewd or lascivious molestation necessitates proof of intentional touching, whereas sexual battery requires proof of penetration. The court finds no clear legislative intent to separate punishments for these offenses arising from a single act, and under the Blockburger analysis, the elements of the two offenses differ, allowing for separate convictions. Lewd or lascivious molestation requires a specific intent that is not a component of sexual battery. Lewd or lascivious intent is not a necessary element of sexual battery, which can occur without intent for sexual gratification, as established in Surace v. State. Furthermore, sexual assault is distinguished from lewd or lascivious conduct for double jeopardy purposes, particularly regarding intent. The legal definitions differ, as touching a child's buttocks in a lewd manner constitutes lewd or lascivious molestation but not sexual battery, which requires penetration or sexual union. The two offenses are separate under Florida law, not meeting any exceptions listed in section 775.021(4)(b), thus allowing for convictions of both without violating double jeopardy principles. Mr. Roughton’s convictions are affirmed, and a direct conflict with several prior cases is certified. Although the trial court found him guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation, it did not impose a sentence, which does not remedy a potential double jeopardy issue. Florida Statutes dictate that offenses requiring distinct elements should be sentenced separately, and the intent of the Legislature is to convict for each offense committed during a criminal episode. The lewd or lascivious statute was revised in 1999, which affects the interpretation of earlier cases, and Mr. Roughton’s argument regarding the Williams rule is not addressed as it lacks merit.