Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

650 So. 2d 969

Docket No. 83064.

Thompson v. State

Joseph THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 27, 1994.

Rehearing Denied February 23, 1995.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1994-10-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“prohibition against multiple punishments... . Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including King v. State

Relies on 634 So. 2d 153 - Sirmons v. State · 634 So. 2d 157 - Goodwin v. State · 488 So. 2d 589 - Godwin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-10-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 14 Cal. 4th 668 - People v. Mayfield (1997), 699 So. 2d 1312 - Franqui v. State (1997)

61 state decisions

330199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and James W. Rogers, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We have for review Thompson v. State,627 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinions in Sirmons v. State,634 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1994), and Goodwin v. State,634 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

¶5Based on a single sexual act, Thompson was convicted of sexual battery on a physically incapacitated victim in violation of section 794.011(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), and sexual activity while in custodial authority of a child, in violation of section 794.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). He was sentenced to two concurrent nine-year terms. The district court found no multiple-punishments problem in this sentencing scheme, but noted possible conflict with George v. State,488 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). However, the district court proceeded to distinguish George from the instant case.

¶6We do not address whether conflict with George exists, because we find independent conflict with Sirmons and Goodwin. In those two cases we held multiple punishments impermissible based on a single act if the various offenses are distinguished only by degree elements, which clearly is the case here. Accordingly, we find that the prohibition against multiple punishments has been violated. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. The decision below is quashed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our views here and in Sirmons and Goodwin. Dual convictions and sentences are not permissible here.

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.

/650/so2d/969 · .json · Public domain