Introduction

Robert Velazco v. State of Florida is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Florida adjudicated on June 30, 2022. The case centered around Velazco's convictions for two separate DUI-related offenses arising from a single incident: driving under the influence (DUI) causing damage to property or person under section 316.193(3)(c)1, and DUI causing serious bodily injury under section 316.193(3)(c)2 of the Florida Statutes. Velazco contended that these dual convictions violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, arguing that they constituted degree variants of the same offense.

The key issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of Florida's double jeopardy protections, specifically whether dual convictions for offenses arising from a single criminal episode constitute a violation when those offenses are degree variants of each other under the statutory framework.

The parties involved included Robert Velazco as the petitioner and the State of Florida, represented by Attorney General Ashley Moody and her team, as the respondent. The case advanced through the District Court of Appeal of the Third District before reaching the Supreme Court of Florida for a resolution on the double jeopardy claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Florida ruled in favor of Robert Velazco, holding that his dual convictions for DUI causing damage to property or person and DUI causing serious bodily injury were degree variants of the same offense under Section 775.021(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes. Consequently, these convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy as they arose from a single criminal episode involving the same victim. The Court quashed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision and approved the Fourth District's certified direct conflict decision in Anguille v. State, to the extent consistent with this judgment.

The Court emphasized that the degree-variant exception applies even when the statute does not explicitly use the term "degree," as long as there is a relationship of degree established through the statutory framework and the severity of the offenses.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on several key precedents to support the Court's decision:

• Anguille v. State, 243 So.3d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018): This case established that dual convictions for DUI with serious bodily injury and DUI with property damage arising from a single episode violate double jeopardy as degree variants.
• Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009): Provided foundational analysis for determining degree variants based on statutory designations and aggravated forms of a basic offense.
• Graham v. State, 207 So.3d 135 (Fla. 2016): Affirmed that double jeopardy claims based on undisputed facts are subject to de novo review.
• MELBOURNE v. STATE, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996): Clarified that multiple convictions from a single violation do not violate double jeopardy when injuries are sustained by several persons.
• State v. Maisonet-Maldonado, 308 So.3d 63 (Fla. 2020) and State v. Marsh, 308 So.3d 59 (Fla. 2020): These cases guided the understanding that degree variants need not be explicitly labeled as such within the statute if the relationship is evident through other means.
• Tambriz-Ramirez v. State, 248 So.3d 1087 (Fla. 2018): Reinforced that different offenses criminalizing distinct conduct under separate statutes do not qualify as degree variants.

These precedents collectively underscored the Court's approach to interpreting double jeopardy in the context of degree variants, emphasizing statutory context, common naming, similar elements, and hierarchical relationships among offenses.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a multifaceted approach to determine whether Velazco's dual convictions constituted a double jeopardy violation under the degree-variant exception:

• Statutory Interpretation: The Court examined section 316.193(3) of the Florida Statutes, which outlines various DUI offenses with escalating penalties based on the severity of the resultant harm. The presence of multiple degrees within the same statutory framework indicated an inherent degree relationship, even without explicit terminology.
• Degree-Variant Exception: Under Section 775.021(4)(b)2, double jeopardy prohibits dual convictions for offenses that are degrees of the same offense. The Court determined that DUI causing serious bodily injury is an aggravated form of DUI causing damage to property or person, fulfilling this exception.
• Common Elements: Both offenses share identical foundational elements, including the basic DUI conduct outlined in section 316.193(1), with the sole difference being the extent of harm caused.
• Single Episode and Victim: The offenses arose from a single criminal episode involving the same victim, reinforcing the argument that the convictions were based on the same act and thus subject to double jeopardy protections.
• Alternative Conduct Statute: The Court noted that section 316.193(3)(c)1 represents an alternative conduct statute. However, since the dual convictions did not involve different victims or distinct episodes, the degree-variant exception was applicable.

By integrating these elements, the Court concluded that the dual convictions were impermissible under double jeopardy protections, thereby establishing a clear precedence for future DUI cases involving degree variants.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the prosecution of DUI offenses in Florida:

• Clarification of Degree Variants: Establishes a clear precedent that offenses within the same statutory framework that represent varying degrees of harm are subject to double jeopardy protections when arising from a single incident and victim.
• Guidance for Prosecutors and Defendants: Prosecutors must be cautious in charging individuals with multiple degree variants of DUI offenses arising from the same incident. Defendants can confidently assert double jeopardy defenses in similar circumstances.
• Judicial Consistency: Encourages consistency across Florida courts in interpreting double jeopardy claims, particularly in cases involving statutory degrees of offenses.
• Legislative Considerations: May prompt legislators to reconsider how DUI offenses are structured within statutes to either align with or differentiate degree variants more explicitly.

Overall, the decision enhances the protection of defendants' rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause by preventing the state from increasing punishment through multiple charges for the same criminal behavior.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy is a constitutional protection that prevents an individual from being tried or punished multiple times for the same offense. In this case, it ensures that Robert Velazco cannot be convicted of multiple related DUI offenses stemming from a single incident.

Degree-Variant Exception

This exception applies when two offenses are considered different degrees of the same crime. For example, DUI causing minor property damage and DUI causing serious bodily injury are seen as more severe manifestations of the same fundamental offense.

Same-Elements Test

The same-elements test assesses whether two charges share significant common elements, making them essentially the same offense. If they do, prosecuting both may violate double jeopardy protections unless an exception, like the degree-variant exception, applies.

Alternative Conduct Statute

An alternative conduct statute allows a defendant to be charged with one of multiple offenses based on different aspects of their conduct. However, if charges stem from the same incident and victim without distinct elements, double jeopardy may still apply.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Robert Velazco v. State underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the Double Jeopardy Clause by preventing multiple convictions for degree-variant offenses arising from a single criminal episode. By recognizing DUI causing damage to property or person and DUI causing serious bodily injury as degree variants under Section 775.021(4)(b)2, the Court has clarified the boundaries within which DUI offenses must be prosecuted. This ruling not only protects defendants from facing disproportionate punishments but also guides future prosecutions to respect constitutional safeguards. The decision affirms the importance of statutory interpretation in safeguarding legal principles and promotes consistency in the application of double jeopardy protections across Florida's legal landscape.