SC20588 - State v. King (“On appeal before this court, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the elements of Florida’s driving under the influence statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193, which he previously had been convicted of violating twice, were substantially the same as the elements of § 14-227a (a) for enhancement purposes under § 14-227a (g) because, he contends, the phrase ‘actual physical control’ under § 316.193 (1) criminalizes a broader range of conduct than does the term ‘operating’ under § 14-227a (a). To decide this question, we first must address an issue we have not confronted before: the meaning of the phrase in § 14- 227a (g) that provides an enhancement for ‘any offense the essential elements of which are determined by the court to be substantially the same as subdivision (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section . . . .’ We conclude that this phrase means that the basic and necessary parts of the out-of-state statute, including the actus reus, mens rea, and causation, must be the same as the elements of § 14-227a (a) to a considerable degree. Applying this definition to the claim at issue, we conclude that the essential elements of § 14-227a (a) and § 316.193 are substantially the same. Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Court’s judgment.”)