holding that the single homicide rule bars dual convictions for vehicular homicide and fleeing or eluding when the offenses involve the same victim
How later courts described this case
- holding that the single homicide rule bars dual convictions for vehicular homicide and fleeing or eluding when the offenses involve the same victim
- "[The single homicide rule] provides that although a defendant can be charged and convicted under multiple criminal statutes for conduct causing another's death during one criminal episode, that criminal defendant can only be punished once for that death." (citing State v. Cooper, 634 So. 2d 1074, 1074-75 (Fla. 1994); Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193, 1197 (Fla. 1985); Rodriguez v. State, 875 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SILBERMAN, Judge, Concurring,
I fully agree with' Judge Badalamenti’s thorough analysis and resolution of each of the double jeopardy pairings. I write to note two points. First, as to footnote six of the majority opinion, I do not read Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009), as casting doubt on the continued viability of the single homicide rule. Second, although McCullough’s appellate argument for-reversal focused primarily on the single homicide rule, the State argued for affir-mance based on. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). In light of our conclusion that McCullough is entitled to relief under the single homicide rule, we need not address the State’s Blockburger argument. However, if we were to reach that issue I would agree with Judge Sleet that as to the pairing of vehicular homicide and fleeing or eluding causing serious bodily injury or death, a Blockburger analysis would not support affirmance.