lewd and lascivious molestation violate his right against double jeopardy because both convictions arose from a single, continuous episode without a spatial or temporal break between each act to enable the defendant to form a new criminal intent for each separate act. We disagree. The differences in the character and type of crime proven are as important as the spatial and temporal aspects when considering whether multiple punishments are appropriate. An analysis of those differences, as noted by Judge Griffin in her concurring opinion in the defendant’s initial appeal, leads to the conclusion that the defendant’s convictions for attempted sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation did not violate his double jeopardy rights. See also State v. Meshell, 2 So.3d 132, 135 (Fla.2009)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence for
holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding that double jeopardy considerations preclude multiple convictions and sentences for lewd and lascivious behavior which arise out of a single criminal episode where there is no significant spatial andor temporal break in the episode holding that acts of oral anal and vaginal penetration as prescribed by statute defining lewd and lascivious battery are distinct criminal acts such that separate punishments for those acts do not violate double jeopardy despite the fact that they occurred in the same criminal episode holding that forfeiture is not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation