S.Ct. 673. Citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the Supreme Court said: The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. at 366, 103 S.Ct. 673. “Absent a clear statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, courts employ the Blockburger test, as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), to determine whether separate offenses exist.” Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17, 19-20 (Fla.2001); see also Jones v. State, 608 So.2d 797 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>). Like the charges that Mr. Rodriguez faced
holding that the defendants juvenile convictions for burglary were crimes of violence for purposes of the section 9711d9 aggravating circumstance holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy