not appear to have applied their Duke double jeopardy analysis of the sexual battery statute to the same list of distinct sex acts proscribed in section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes. See, e.g., Samuel v. State, 925 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (upholding multiple convictions for lewd and lascivious battery over double jeopardy challenge based upon finding that the acts were both distinct in character and temporally separated so that the defendant had sufficient time to reflect and form a new criminal intent); Coffield v. State, 872 So.2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing lewd and lascivious battery conviction on grounds that evidence did not reflect sufficient pause between two distinct sex acts to avoid double jeopardy violation); Cabanela v. State, 871 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). To further confuse the issue, even though we
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 convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy holding that when state charges defendant with both unlawfully using twoway communications device and traveling during same time period state charges single criminal episode regardless of whether evidence could support finding of separate criminal episodes and double jeopardy considerations require that  communications charge be subsumed within traveling charge 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 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