Anthony Doyle v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    ANTHONY DOYLE,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                       Case No. 5D17-686
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed February 23, 2018
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Seminole County,
    Debra S. Nelson, Judge.
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender,
    and    Glendon George Gordon, Jr,
    Assistant Public Defender, Daytona
    Beach, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman,
    Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
    Beach, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    Anthony Doyle appeals his convictions and sentences for extortion under section
    836.05, Florida Statutes (2015), and written threats to kill or do bodily injury under section
    836.10, Florida Statutes (2015), arguing that the dual convictions violate double jeopardy.
    We agree and therefore reverse and remand for resentencing.
    The evidence adduced at trial was that Doyle sent a handwritten letter to his pastor,
    threatening “a slow and painful death” for the pastor’s children and their families if the
    pastor failed to deliver $15,000 to Doyle or if he notified the police. Doyle claimed that he
    also received a letter, which he showed to the pastor, stating that the pastor had a
    package that Doyle was to pick up and take to the alleged extorters, or they would kill
    Doyle’s parents and wife.
    Doyle became the subject of the police investigation because the two letters
    contained the same handwriting and matched the handwriting in a written statement
    Doyle had provided the police in an unrelated case. 1 The jury returned a guilty verdict on
    both charges. Doyle was sentenced to five years’ incarceration on each charge, with each
    sentence to run concurrently, followed by ten years of probation. The sole issue on appeal
    is whether double jeopardy precluded convictions on both charges.
    Section 836.05, “Threats; extortion,” provides:
    Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed
    communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of
    any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously
    threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of
    another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to
    disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to
    impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent
    thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage
    whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so
    threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from
    doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony
    of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082,
    s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
    § 836.05, Fla. Stat. (2015).
    Section 836.10, “Written threats to kill or do bodily injury; punishment,” provides:
    1   The handwriting also matched writing samples Doyle provided in the instant case.
    2
    Any person who writes or composes and also sends or
    procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication,
    or electronic communication, whether such letter or
    communication be signed or anonymous, to any person,
    containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to
    whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill
    or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person
    to whom such letter or communication is sent commits a
    felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
    775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
    § 836.10, Fla. Stat. (2015).
    Doyle argues that the elements of the two offenses are inseparable and that a
    conviction for written threats under section 836.10 does not include any additional
    elements not included for an extortion conviction under section 836.05. Alternatively, he
    suggests that even if the crimes contain different elements, a conviction for written threats
    under section 836.10 is necessarily subsumed by an extortion conviction under section
    836.05. The State responds that each offense contains a different element; extortion
    includes malice, intent, and several different types of threats, while written threats to kill
    or do bodily harm contains the elements of sending the communication as well as that the
    threat could be to a family member. 2
    “A double jeopardy claim based upon undisputed facts presents a pure question
    of law and is reviewed de novo.” State v. Akins, 
    69 So. 3d 261
    , 268 (Fla. 2011) (quoting
    Pizzo v. State, 
    945 So. 2d 1203
    , 1206 (Fla. 2006)). “The prevailing standard for
    2 The State also argues that Roughton v. State, 
    185 So. 3d 1207
    (Fla. 2016),
    controls in this case and that dual convictions under sections 836.05 and 836.10 do not
    violate double jeopardy based on the alternative conduct proscribed by each statute. This
    argument lacks merit. In Roughton, the court explicitly found that both lewd or lascivious
    molestation and sexual battery contain a different element that the other does not, based
    on the alternative conduct proscribed by each 
    statute. 185 So. 3d at 1210
    . As explained
    below, however, section 836.10 does not contain any element not found in section
    836.05.
    3
    Written Threats to Kill or Do
    Extortion—Section 836.05
    Bodily Injury—Section 836.10
    (1) a person writes or composes a
    (1) the defendant made a written, printed, or verbal     communication containing a threat,
    communication of a threat to another                     and sends or procures sending of
    that communication,
    (2) in the communication, the defendant threatened to:
    (a) accuse another of a crime;                       (2) threatening to kill or do bodily
    (b) injure another person;                           injury
    (c) injure another’s property or reputation;
    (d) expose another person to disgrace;               (3) to the recipient of the threat or a
    (e) expose a secret; or                              member of his or her family.
    (f) impute deformity or lack of chastity
    (3) the threat was made maliciously                      n/a
    (4) the threat was made with the intent to:
    (a) extort money or pecuniary advantage
    n/a
    (b) compel a person to do any act or refrain
    from doing an act against his/her will.
    Thus, extortion under section 836.05 may be committed by issuing a written threat
    to commit bodily harm on another, which encompasses all of the required elements of
    section 836.10—a written threat to kill or do bodily injury on the person threatened or a
    family member. The elements of extortion differ in that there must be malice as well as
    an intent to extort money or compel a person into action or inaction. But a conviction for
    written threats to kill or do bodily injury contains no further requirements.
    The State’s contention that the elements are different because the written threat
    under section 836.10 may be directed toward a family member is unpersuasive. Under
    the second element of extortion (as listed above), extortion may be committed by
    threatening to injure another person. See § 836.05, Fla. Stat. This is broad enough to
    encompass the third element required for written threats to kill or do bodily injury that the
    threat of injury is to the person receiving the threat or a member of his or her family. See
    
    id. § 836.10.
    A conviction for written threats under section 836.10 does not have any
    5
    Written Threats to Kill or Do
    Extortion—Section 836.05
    Bodily Injury—Section 836.10
    (1) a person writes or composes a
    (1) the defendant made a written, printed, or verbal     communication containing a threat,
    communication of a threat to another                     and sends or procures sending of
    that communication,
    (2) in the communication, the defendant threatened to:
    (a) accuse another of a crime;                       (2) threatening to kill or do bodily
    (b) injure another person;                           injury
    (c) injure another’s property or reputation;
    (d) expose another person to disgrace;               (3) to the recipient of the threat or a
    (e) expose a secret; or                              member of his or her family.
    (f) impute deformity or lack of chastity
    (3) the threat was made maliciously                      n/a
    (4) the threat was made with the intent to:
    (a) extort money or pecuniary advantage
    n/a
    (b) compel a person to do any act or refrain
    from doing an act against his/her will.
    Thus, extortion under section 836.05 may be committed by issuing a written threat
    to commit bodily harm on another, which encompasses all of the required elements of
    section 836.10—a written threat to kill or do bodily injury on the person threatened or a
    family member. The elements of extortion differ in that there must be malice as well as
    an intent to extort money or compel a person into action or inaction. But a conviction for
    written threats to kill or do bodily injury contains no further requirements.
    The State’s contention that the elements are different because the written threat
    under section 836.10 may be directed toward a family member is unpersuasive. Under
    the second element of extortion (as listed above), extortion may be committed by
    threatening to injure another person. See § 836.05, Fla. Stat. This is broad enough to
    encompass the third element required for written threats to kill or do bodily injury that the
    threat of injury is to the person receiving the threat or a member of his or her family. See
    
    id. § 836.10.
    A conviction for written threats under section 836.10 does not have any
    5
    additional elements not contained in section 836.05. Therefore, dual convictions on both
    charges, arising out of the same criminal transaction, violate double jeopardy.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
    COHEN, C.J., SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D17-686

Filed Date: 2/19/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2018