Trappman v. State
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified conflict over whether dual convictions for battery of a law enforcement officer (shoving) and aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer (siccing a dog) arising from the same brief encounter violate double jeopardy. The Court held that Blockburger's 'distinct acts' test—not the 'different elements' test—governs when a defendant is convicted multiple times under provisions where one act is subsumed by the other but occurring within a single episode, and that acts are distinct if they stem from 'successive impulses,' even if closely connected in time and place. Applying that test, the Court approved Trappman's dual convictions, disapproved the Fourth District's Olivard decision and the Fifth District's Rivera decision as inconsistent with Blockburger's distinct-acts framework grounded in section 775.021(4).
Key facts
- Trappman was charged with both battery of a law enforcement officer (for shoving) and aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer (for siccing a pit bull) based on a single brief encounter lasting about one minute.
- The trial court convicted Trappman of both offenses, but the district courts of appeal were split on whether these dual convictions violated double jeopardy protections against multiple punishments for the same conduct.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision is highly significant for double jeopardy and multiple-punishment analysis in Florida criminal cases, definitively resolving a long-standing district conflict on when successive acts against the same… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.