Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The pertinent part of each count of the indictment reads: "... in violation of the common law of England, as enunicated in La Tour v. Stone, (Sup.Ct., Fla. 1939) 190 So. 704 and Sullivan v. Leatherman (Sup.Ct., Fla. 1950) 48 So.2d 836, as adopted by F.S. 775.01 and punishable as provided in F.S. 775.02......

...with written laws prescribing the obligations of the offices which they hold. [20] Lastly, we point out that, upon remand of this cause, and subsequent trial, appellee, should he be convicted as charged, would be subject to the penalty provisions of Section 775.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., pertaining to punishment of common law offenses: "When there exists no such provision by statute, the court shall proceed to punish such offense by fine or imprisonment, but the fine shall not exceed five hun...

...Section 38.22 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes courts to impose imprisonment and fines for contempt, but states no maximum time for such imprisonment. [13] Section 775.01 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that the common law crimes of England are crimes in Florida. [14] Section 775.02 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that when no maximum punishment is prescribed for criminal contempt, the maximum shall not exceed one year imprisonment and a fine of $500.00....

...38, § 1-7(j)), but contempt has been held not to come under the section because a separate section limits applicability to offenses included within the Code of Illinois. People v. Stollar, 31 Ill.2d 154, 201 N.E.2d 97 (1964), and Ill. Rev. Stat., 1961, Ch. 38, § 1-3. The comparable Florida statute, Fla. Stat. § 775.02, F.S.A., provides a similar limitation of one year and a fine of $500, but limits its applications, solely to common law crimes....

...this Court has not had to face, and which I feel is not required in the determination of the case sub judice. If the language noted above from Bloom, supra , were the only test provided by the Supreme Court, the question of whether or not Fla. Stat. § 775.02, F.S.A., applies to indirect criminal contempt might be essential, but such is not the case....

...In fact, the Supreme Court, in Bloom, stated: "We accept the judgment of Barnett and Cheff that criminal contempt is a petty offense unless the punishment makes it a serious one; ... ." 391 U.S. 194, p. 198, 88 S.Ct. 1477, p. 1480. The view that Fla. Stat. § 775.02, F.S.A., applies and that therefore Rule 3.840(a) (4), CrPR, is unconstitutional unless saved by the imposition of six months or less is one which I cannot espouse....

from FLSA requirements. See 29 C.F.R. § 775.2. On December 21, 1979, the DOL amended the policy

...ent in the state penitentiary. Art. X, § 10, Fla. Const. (emphasis added). In sum, no felony can exist under Florida law unless created by a valid statute properly approved by the legislature. Thus, Florida recognizes no common law felonies. Accord § 775.02, Fla....

...what conduct might transgress them. This decision does not have the effect of legalizing abortions, as that is a matter solely for the legislative branch of government. Abortions must now be punished as a common law offense as provided in Fla. Stat. § 775.02, F.S.A., which is hardly adequate under present day standards to properly protect society....

4 . The relevant portion of 29 C.F.R. § 775.2 states: (a) On June 24, 1976, the United

...s considered to be no existing provision by statute on the subject), nevertheless the 1971 reclassification of criminal penalties [9] and the statute on attempts [10] relate only to statutory offenses and the punishment for common-law offenses under section 775.02, is only on the level of a first degree misdemeanor under § 775.082(4)(a)....

...This was neither alleged nor proved. The majority opinion also holds that it was error for the trial court to sentence on both the attempted [felony] murder and the burglary convictions citing State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 1981). Hegstrom, construing section 775.021(4), said, "Because the crime of first degree murder committed during the course of a robbery requires, by definition, proof of the predicate robbery, the latter is necessarily an offense included within the former." First degree felon...

...ve to the murder charge as a necessarily lesser included offense. Since Hegstrom the supreme court in Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982) and in subsequent cases, [13] has made it clear that the phrase "excluding lesser included offenses" in section 775.021(4) means only lesser included offenses as determined by the test in Blockburger v....

...ed to accomplish a killing, which elements of an attempt [15] are not essential elements of armed burglary and, of course, armed burglary has many elements not necessary to any attempt crime. Accordingly, under Blockburger, Borges, Smith, Norris and section 775.021(4) a defendant can be sentenced for the lawful conviction of attempted murder and for an armed burglary also occurring during the same factual event....

...e of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d). First, it informs Blalock that she can be sentenced to a term of one year in the county jail if found guilty and be ordered to pay a fine of up to $1000. The maximum fine that can be imposed is $500. See §§ 38.22, 775.02, Fla....

...tenced to more than six months without the benefit of a jury to try the facts. See Aaron, 284 So.2d at 676-77. If a jury trial is provided, or if the contemnor waives this right, the maximum sentence is one year in the county jail. See id.; see also § 775.02; Bentley, 490 So.2d at 187....

...* the prisoner must nevertheless bear the penalty for the separate and distinct offense of escape." Thus, one in lawful confinement for civil contempt, upon escape would be guilty of the offense of common law "prison break" which is punishable under § 775.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...In Aaron v. State, supra , the supreme court observed that the common law crimes of England are crimes in Florida under section 775.01, Florida Statutes. The Aaron court then concluded that "criminal contempt is a crime under Florida law," and it cited section 775.02 which provides that when no maximum punishment is prescribed, the maximum punishment shall not exceed one year imprisonment or a fine of five hundred dollars. 284 So.2d at 676. Because there is no specific punishment for criminal contempt prescribed in the law, section 775.02 is applicable....

not exceed $500, nor the imprisonment 12 months. § 775.02, Fla. Stat. (2013). There is little case law addressing

...We have long held that criminal contempt is a crime. Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973). We reached that conclusion after noting that the statute which authorized imprisonment and fines for contempt, section 38.22, stated no maximum time for imprisonment. Id. at 676. In such a situation, section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1973), provided that imprisonment could not exceed one year....

...The order itself contained only one legally sufficient allegation — that the receiver was not allowed to exercise the voting rights. Second, the sentence was not pronounced in open court and Lindman and McMillin were not present. Finally, the fine exceeds that authorized by section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1993)....

..."[T]he power of courts to punish for contempt was recognized at common law." Id. (citation omitted). Where there is no existing statutory provision on a subject, the "common law of England in relation to crimes" is "of full force" in Florida. § 775.01, Fla. Stat. (2008); Moorman, 490 So.2d at 187. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (2008), provides that when there exists no statutory provision for a common law offense, "the court shall proceed to punish such offense by fine or imprisonment, but the fine shall not exceed $500, nor the imprisonmen...

...England, as enunciated in LaTour v. Stone, 139 Fla. 681, 190 So. 704 (1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in section 775.02, Florida Statutes." Section 775.01, Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Common law of England....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...s enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. *821 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...s enunciated in Latour v. Stone, *824 [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...aw of England, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan , (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...s enunciated in Latour v. *826 Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...s enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by *828 Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...nd, as enunciated in Latour v. Stone, [139 Fla. 681] 190 So. 704 (Fla. 1939), Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1950), and State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), as adopted by Section 775.01, Florida Statutes, and punishable as provided in Section 775.02, Florida Statutes....

...v. State, 682 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.1996)). Absent clear legislative intent to authorize separate punishments, courts employ the Blockburger 2 “same elements” test, ie., “whether each offense has an element that the other does not,” codified at section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). 3 If, as here, each of the offenses has an element that the other does not, the court must then determine if one of the exceptions set forth in section 775.021(4)(b) applies to preclude separate convictions and sentences....

...es which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. Ramirez argues that, for each criminal episode, he was unlawfully convicted of two degree variants of the same basic offense. As such, he contends that section 775.021(4)(b)2. prevents two of his convictions. The supreme court has interpreted section 775.021(4)(b)2....

...3d at 1076 . The term “degree” is “a level based on the seriousness of an offense”; however, a degree-relationship can be found, “for example, when a crime may have aggravated forms of the basic offense.” Id. While Valdes informs us that section 775.021(4)(b)2....

...This analysis applies equally to Ramirez’s convictions for striking Bouzigard. Double jeopardy similarly precludes convictions for both felony battery (one prior) and domestic battery by strangulation arising out of the same event because they are both aggravated forms of simple battery. 6 § 775.021(4)(b)2., Fla....

...AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur. . Neither party contests that these two pairs of convictions stem from two separate criminal episodes. . Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). . Section 775.02 l(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), states: Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall b...

...For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial. . Though not argued by the parties, we also find that felony battery (one prior) subsumes simple battery. See § 775.021(b)3., Fla....

(5)(a)l., a sexually violent predator under Section 775.2 l(4)(d), one of the three enumerated state offices

...nominious burial of his body in the highway." 83 C.J.S. Suicide § 2 at 782 (1953). [10] To the extent that a common law felony is carried over into the law of Florida, it is no longer treated as a felony but instead is punishable as provided for in section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Where there is no statutory provision to the contrary, the common law of England with respect to crimes is still in effect in Florida. § 775.01, Fla. Stat. (1985). The maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed for conviction of a common law crime is twelve months. § 775.02, Fla....

...The courts have no authority to provide a penalty where no punishment is provided by the legislature. The judiciary can only impose penalties within the limit set by the legislature. Bradley v. State, 79 Fla. 651, 84 So. 677 (1920), and Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458 (Fla. 1943). The State's argument that Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides that: "When there exists no provision by statute, the court shall proceed to punish such offense by fine or imprisonment, but the fine shall not exceed $500, nor the imprisonment 12 months." has no merit because this section is applicable to common law offenses only....

...the jury, upon conviction of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment, as authorized by Florida Statute section 775.02....

...Warner, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur. . We need not address whether the trial court could have increased the penalty for the first charge of direct criminal contempt after the follow-up action, as the court had already imposed the maximum penalty permitted trader section 775.02, Florida Statutes (2016).

...1977) and cases cited therein. We are compelled to agree with appellant that the fine imposed was excessive. Section 38.22, Florida Statutes (1973) authorizes courts to impose imprisonment and a fine for contempt, but states no maximum punishment. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1927) provides that when no maximum punishment is provided by statute for criminal conduct, punishment shall not exceed one year's imprisonment and $500.00 fine. Criminal contempt convictions are subject to the provisions of Section 775.02....

...there are any “specific, clear and precise statements of legislative intent.” Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1071 . Absent a clear statement of legislative intent in the criminal offense statutes themselves, courts employ the Blockburger 1 test, codified in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, to determine whether separate offenses exist. Id. at 1070-72 . Section 775.021(4)(a) provides that offenses committed in “the course of one criminal transaction or episode” are separate offenses only “if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.” In section 775.021(4)(b), the legislature has stated that its intent “is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction.” There are three enumerated exceptions to this rule of construction: 1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof. 2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. 3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. § 775.021(4)(b), Fla....

...Neither statute contains any “specific, clear, and precise” statement of the legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for the two offenses when they arise out of the same criminal transaction. 2 See Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1071 . *1062 Thus, we look to section 775.021(4) to discern the legislature’s intent....

...The felony retail theft offense, however, contains an element that is not an element of the third-degree grand theft, namely that the defendant “coordinates the activities of one or more individuals in committing the offense.” 3 Thus, the exception enumerated in section 775.021(4)(b)3 is applicable as the statutory elements of third-degree grand theft are subsumed by the felony retail theft in concert with others offense....

...preme Court’s ruling in Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1067 , because the two offenses are found in separate statutory provisions. The state’s reliance on Valdes is misplaced, however, because the supreme court in Valdes only addressed the interpretation of section 775.021(4)(b)2, which applies to *1063 “[ojffenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.” Our decision here is based on section 775.021(4)(b)3 as well as the definition of “separate offenses” as defined in section 775.021(4)(a)....

...of that the other does not. Robbery requires that the State show that “force, violence, assault, or putting in fear was used in the course of the taking,” and grand theft requires that the State show the value of the property taken. Accordingly, section 775.021(4)(b)l is inapplicable. Additionally, because neither offense is wholly subsumed by the other, neither is a necessarily included offense of the other. Therefore section 775.021(4)(b)3 is also inapplicable....

...usly placed on the statute is presumed to have been adopted in the reenactment.”). Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the supreme court’s interpretation of the retail theft statute is still authoritative after Valdes given that paragraph (b) of section 775.021(4) was added in 1988, several years after the Emshwiller opinion....

...dditional element does not change the analysis, however, as expanding the number of elements for the retail theft offense does not change the fact that all of the elements of third-degree grand theft are subsumed by it. . Even if the exception under section 775.02 l(4)(b)3 were inapplicable, convictions under both statutes in this case would constitute a double jeopardy violation because the two offenses are not "separate” offenses as defined in section 775.02l(4)(a) because each offense does not require “proof of an element that the other does not.” While felony retail theft as defined in section 812.015(8)(a) contains an element that is not an element of third-degree grand theft, the c...

..."State penitentiary" shall include state correctional facilities. A person shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for each sentence which, except an extended term, exceeds 1 year. § 775.08, Fla. Stat. (2001). Contempt is punishable by imprisonment not to exceed twelve months. See § 775.02, Fla....

Florida recognizes no common law felonies. Accord § 775.02, Fla.Stat. (1989) (no common law crime may be

...Double Jeopardy Analysis Both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sec *928 tion 9 of the Florida Constitution protect persons from being put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Our supreme court recently reiterated that it looks to the Blockburger 2 test, as codified in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, to determine whether double jeopardy has been violated. State v. Paul, 984 So.2d 1167 (Fla.2006). Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (2005), states: (a) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall b...

...Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. (Emphasis added). The analysis involves two steps. Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17, 20 (Fla.2001). First, the court must determine whether the offenses each contain an element of proof that the other does not, as stated in section 775.021(4)(a). If they do not, double jeopardy bars multiple prosecutions or convictions. If they each contain separate elements, then the court must determine if one of the three exceptions in section 775.021(4)(b) applies....

...The first exception is merely a restatement of the same elements test in subsection (4)(a). The second exception is referred to as the “degree variants” test. The third exception deals with necessary lesser included offenses. a. The Blockburger or “Same Elements” Test Blockburger and section 775.021(4)(a) require courts to first examine whether “each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not....” This step is referred to as the “same elements” test....

...g that for both crimes, the State would adduce proof of the same facts, ie. that on August 9, 2005, Duff was driving with a suspended or revoked license. This argument runs afoul of the “same elements” test, as expressed in the plain language of section 775.021(4)(a)....

...In other words, this test focuses on comparing the statutory elements, not the underlying pleadings or proof. Duff also argues that Cooke does not control this case because the court in Cooke did not consider the “degree variants” exception in section 775.021(4)(b)(2). b. The “Degree Variants” Exception Section 775.02(4)(b)(2) provides an exception to the Legislature’s intent to “convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction” for offenses which are “degrees of the same offense a...

...ense distinguished only by degree factors.” Id. at 154 . However, in Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17 (Fla.2001), the supreme court noted that Extended to its logical extreme, a broad reading of Sirmons and the second statutory exception would render section 775.021 a nullity....

...Indeed, the plethora of criminal offenses is undoubtedly derived from a limited number of “core” crimes. In no uncertain terms, the Legislature specifically expressed its intent that criminal defendants should be convicted and sentenced for every crime committed during the course of one criminal episode. See § 775.021(4)(b)....

...iolation, are consistent with the limited statutory exception. However, extension of this exception to multiple convictions for attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and felony causing bodily injury would contravene the plain meaning of section 775.021....

...Consequently, the court looked to whether the crimes were intended to punish the same “primary evil”. Id. Both the supreme court and this Court have continued to follow the “primary evil” analysis in applying the “degree variants” exception in section 775.021(4)(b)(2)....

...In effect, we held that dual convictions for driving without a valid driver’s license and driving while license revoked as a habitual traffic offender, arising out of the same incident, violate double jeopardy because they are degree variants (same primary evil), contrary to section 775.021(4)(b)(2), and because one is a necessary lesser included offense of the other, contrary to section 775.021(4)(b)(2)....

...gree variants of the same core offense. Lopez-Vazquez, 931 So.2d at 235 . Based on the above analysis, we conclude that Duffs conviction for driving while license revoked as a habitual traffic offender violates the “degree variants” exception in section 775.021(4)(b)(2), Florida Statutes....

...n that “if two charged crimes share a lesser included offense, or if one offense is a lesser included offense of the other, dual convictions necessarily violate double jeopardy.” Adopting such a rule would be an unwarranted judicial extension of section 775.021(4)(b)(3), in which the Legislature proscribed dual convictions for “[o]ffenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.” This exception applies only to necessary lesser included offenses....

...Florida no longer follows the “same conduct” test. We reverse Duffs subsequent conviction for driving while license revoked as a habitual traffic offender because it violates the “degree variants” principle of double jeopardy, as codified in section 775.021(4)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...Even if the evidence had supported a finding of indirect criminal contempt, the fine was excessive. Contempt is a common law crime in Florida. Section 38.22, Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes courts to punish contempt but contains no penalty provision. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1999), states: “When there exists no such provision by statute, the court shall proceed to punish such offense by fine or imprisonment, but the fine shall not exceed $500, nor the imprisonment 12 months.” See Thomas A....

however, the fine imposed here was $2,500. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1983); Aaron v. State, 284

...in the county jail, the maximum sentence allowable for direct criminal contempt of court where a defendant has not been given a jury trial.1 1 Criminal contempt is a common law crime, with a maximum sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment. See § 775.02, Fla....

...Finding no mitigation, the court sentenced Gems to the maximum of 180 days in the county jail for criminal contempt.2 The next day, Gems returned to court and accepted 2 Criminal contempt is a common law crime, with a maximum sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment. See § 775.02, Fla....

PER CURIAM. There is no error in the judgment that Malone is guilty of indirect criminal contempt. The appropriate fine for such an offense cannot exceed $500, however, and the fine here is excessive by $250. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1979); Aaron v....

espe-*1132-1134dally true in light of the provisions of section 775.02, Florida Statutes, which provide that the provisions

especially true in light of the provisions of section 775.02, Florida Statutes, which provide that the provisions

...2, Florida Statutes (1981). Appellant states that under section 777.04, Florida Statutes (1981), an attempt of a third degree felony is considered a first degree misdemeanor. The sentence for a first degree misdemeanor must not exceed one year under section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973): Section 38.22 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes courts to impose imprisonment and fines for contempt, but states no maximum time for such imprisonment. Section 775.01 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that the common law crimes of England are crimes in Florida. Section 775.02 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that when no maximum punishment is prescribed for criminal contempt, the maximum shall not exceed one year imprisonment and a fine of $500.00....

...(criminal mischief resulting in damage greater than $200 but less than $1,000 “is a misdemeanor”). *35 Because common law crimes are punishable by imprisonment not to exceed twelve months, the punishment imposable for criminal contempt is identical to that imposable for a misdemeanor. See §§ 775.01, 775.02, Fla....

...A.L., 705 So.2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So.2d 844 (Fla.1960)). Further, applying section 775.081(2) (providing that any misdemeanor not declared by statute to be of the first degree is of the second degree) to section 775.02 (providing that common law offenses may be punishable by imprisonment not to exceed twelve months) would render the latter meaningless since, in all instances, common law crimes would be classified as second degree misdemeanors by default....

...The maximum term of imprisonment for a second degree misdemeanor is limited to sixty days. See § 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. Thus, section 775.081(2) would prohibit a term of imprisonment in excess of sixty days for any common law offense and the twelve-month maximum sentence contemplated under section 775.02 would be illusory....

...State, 677 So.2d 270, 271 (Fla.1996) (stating “courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another”). Thus, this court must assume the legislature intended sections 775.081(2) and 775.02 to operate coexten-sively and have the fullest possible effect; we, therefore, adopt a construction that harmonizes both provisions....

...v. State, 682 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.1996)). Absent clear legislative intent to authorize separate punishments, courts employ the Blockburge 4 “same elements” test, ie., “whether each offense has an element that the other does not,” codified at section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). 5 If each of the offenses has an element that the other does not, the court must then determine if one of the exceptions set forth in section 775.021(4)(b) 6 applies to preclude separate convictions and sentences....

...Neglect that results in the death of the child is a first-degree felony. Koenig, 757 So.2d at 596 . Double jeopardy principles prohibit convictions for “[ojffenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.” § 775.021(4)(b)3., Fla....

...AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part. PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur. . § 782.07(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). . § 827.03(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). .The Court has consolidated these cases for disposition. . Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). . Section 775.02 l(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), states: Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall b...

...s to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial. . Section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), states: The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent....

...However, it does appear that the fine imposed on the defendants is excessive and must be reduced. The maxi- mum penalty for criminal contempt is one year imprisonment and a fine of $500.00. Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973); Miami Health Studios, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gerstein, 294 So.2d 365 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1975)....

PER CURIAM. We affirm but remand with direction for compliance with section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...In other words, the nature of the offense, and its consequences, dictate that the courts be free to independently punish its occurrence. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed for criminal contempt. Affirmed. . Imprisonment for criminal contempt may not exceed 12 months. Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673, 676 (Fla.1973); § 775.02, Fla.Stat....

...judicious manner. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the adjudication of direct criminal contempt. Regarding that part of the trial court’s sentence imposing the $1,000 fine, the State correctly concedes that the maximum fine allowable is $500. § 775.02, Fla.Stat....