LEONARD PAUL SPIKES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leonard Paul Spikes was convicted of robbery with a firearm and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because the use of firearm charge was a lesser included offense of the robbery charge and could not support a separate sentence under Florida law.
A defendant cannot be sentenced separately for both offenses when one is a lesser included offense of the other arising from the same criminal transaction. The use of a firearm charge is a 'category three' lesser included offense of robbery with a firearm because the firearm use is an essential element that must be proven to establish the robbery conviction.
[1] A defendant may not be sentenced separately for two criminal offenses arising from the same criminal transaction when one offense is a lesser included offense of the othe…
[2] A "category three" lesser included offense is one where the minor offense is an essential element of the major offense, making it legally impossible to prove the major of…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during said criminal episode”
Establishes the statutory prohibition on separate sentencing for lesser included offenses arising from the same criminal transaction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpikes was charged with two counts: robbery with a firearm under Section 812.13 and use of a firearm in commission of a felony under Section 790.07. F…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Use Of A Firearm In The Commission Of A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Leonard Paul Spikes appeals from his conviction of robbery with the use of a firearm, and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. We affirm the judgments against the defendant, but find it necessary to remand this case to the trial court with directions to set aside the sentence for use of a firearm in commission of a felony.
The defendant was charged by a two-count information with robbery with a firearm, in violation of Section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1977), and with use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, a violation of Section 790.07, Florida Statutes (1977). Following a trial by jury, the appellant was found guilty of both charges and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of robbery with a firearm, and to fifteen years with three years mandatory on the charge of the use of a firearm in commission of a felony.
Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1977), provides that:
Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during said criminal episode, and the sentencing judge may . order the sentences to be served concurrently of consecutively, [emphasis added]
Thus, under this section a criminal defendant may not be sentenced for two separate violations of two separate statutes when both violations occur out of the same criminal conduct, and one is a lesser included offense of the other. In Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968), the Florida Supreme Court established four categories of lesser included offenses. A “category three” lesser included offense is where the minor offense is an essential element of the major offense. If it is legally impossible to prove the major offense, without proving the minor offense, the minor offense is a “category three" lesser included offense of the major offense. In this case, it should be obvious that the State could not prove robbery with the use of a firearm without proving that the appellant had used a firearm in the commission of a felony. Thus, the latter offense would be a “category three” lesser included offense of the former, thereby precluding separate sentences for both. See also Walton v. State, 360 So. 2d 60 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).
Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the trial court with directions to set aside the sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Otherwise, both judgments and the sentence for the felony of robbery with the use of a firearm are AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hearns v. State, 378 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ttle). The display of a deadly weapon, being a lesser included offense of the attempted robbery charge, falls within the exception to Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.). See White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979); Spikes v. State, 375 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Accordingly, we set aside the sentence for display of a deadly weapon during the commission of a criminal offense. In all other respects the judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Kellenbenz v. Kellenbenz, 360 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)