RAYMOND RIDLEY, 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.
Ridley was convicted of five counts of armed robbery based on his use of a .22 caliber starter pistol. The court reversed his convictions for armed robbery, holding that an unmodified starter pistol incapable of firing projectiles does not constitute a 'firearm' under Florida law and therefore cannot support first-degree robbery convictions.
The court held that an unmodified starter pistol incapable of firing projectiles does not satisfy the statutory definition of 'firearm' in section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes, because it is not designed to expel a projectile and is not readily convertible to do so. Therefore, Ridley's convictions for first-degree armed robbery cannot stand.
[1] A starter pistol, in its original, unmodified state, that is incapable of firing a projectile and not readily convertible to such purpose, does not satisfy the statutory…
[2] The statutory definition of a "firearm" includes a weapon designed to or readily convertible to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.
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“It was established at trial that Ridley used an unmodified starter pistol which was incapable of firing a projectile. In order to expel a bullet, the barrel of Ridley's starter pistol would have to be drilled with a drill and drill bit.”
Establishes the critical factual finding that the weapon was unmodified and not readily convertible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRidley committed five robberies using an unmodified .22 caliber starter pistol. The starter pistol was incapable of firing a projectile in its origina…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Ridley appeals from adjudications and sentences based on five counts of robbery with a firearm.1 As in Harpham v. State, 435 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), the evidence disclosed that Ridley used a .22 caliber starter pistol in the robberies rather than a firearm. Ridley argues the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for acquittal on that ground. We think the court erred in adjudicating Ridley guilty of the first degree felonies, based on these proofs.
It was established at trial that Ridley used an unmodified starter pistol which was incapable of firing a projectile. In order to expel a bullet, the barrel of Ridley’s starter pistol would have to be drilled with a drill and drill bit. A starter pistol like Ridley’s in its original, unmodified state is not designed to expel a projectile, nor is it readily convertible to such purpose. It therefore does not satisfy the definition of “firearm” in section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes (1981): “[A]ny weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is. designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.... ” Since the element of carrying a “firearm or other deadly weapon” is essential to establish the first degree felony crime of robbery, section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), Rid-ley’s convictions cannot stand.
We are aware that some starter pistols, unlike Ridley’s, are designed to be manually converted for firing projectiles. Such a weapon might qualify as a firearm under section 790.001(6), but we do not think a pistol like Ridley’s is readily convertible, nor do we think that the presence of a hammer and nail, or even a drill and drill bit at the crime scene would transform Ridley’s type of starter pistol into a weapon defined by section 790.001(6). We recede from any dictum to the contrary in Harpham.
We remand this case for entry of judgments under section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), and for imposition of sentences thereunder. SENTENCES AND JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . § 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duba v. State, 446 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…er an object which may be capable of producing death or great bodily harm only by expelling a projectile was, at the relevant time, capable in fact of doing so. See Harpham v. State, 435 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), as limited by Ridley v. State, 441 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). But see Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Depasquale v. State, 438 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The conviction of attempted kidnapping is affirmed and the conviction for aggravated assault is reversed an…
-
Brooks v. State, 605 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ility to injure. The starter pistol was not used in a manner which would or could cause death or inflict serious bodily harm. Bates v. State, 561 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ridley v. State, 441 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Paul v. State, 421 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and MRR v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); compare Gomez v. State, 496 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (toy gun was a “weapon” for purposes of armed robbery with a weapon…
-
Serod Stanley v. State, 757 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ility to injure. The starter pistol was not used in a manner which would or could cause death or inflict serious bodily harm. Bates v. State, 561 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ridley v. State, 441 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Paul v. State, 421 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and MRR v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); compare Gomez v. State, 496 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(toy gun was a “weapon” for purposes of armed robbery with a weapon…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harpham v. State, 435 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)