STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CLIFFORD TALMADGE SMITH, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court properly reclassified a defendant's manslaughter conviction from a second-degree to first-degree felony based on firearm use. The Court held that reclassification under section 775.087(1) may apply to lesser included offenses, but only when the enhancement element is found by a jury rather than determined by the judge.
The Court held that section 775.087(1) reclassification provisions may apply when a defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense. However, the factual element subjecting the defendant to reclassification must be found by the trier of fact in a jury trial, precluding judicial reclassification without such findings.
[1] A statute providing for felony reclassification based on the use of a firearm may apply when a defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense, not just the offense o…
[2] The factual element subjecting a defendant to enhanced penalties under a firearm use statute must be found by the trier of fact, not determined by the judge.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the reclassification provisions of section 775.087(1) may apply where the defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense rather than the offense expressly charged”
The Court resolved the first issue by holding that reclassification can apply to lesser included offenses, citing Miller v. State
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClifford Talmadge Smith was charged with second-degree murder but was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The trial court reclas…
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 Lesser Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Chief Justice.
This cause is before the Court on petition of the State of Florida for review of the decision of the district court of appeal reported as Smith v. State, 445 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The district court certified that its decision passed upon a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Respondent was charged with second-degree murder and, upon being tried on the accusation of murder, was convicted of manslaughter. The trial court, pursuant to section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1981), reclassified the offense from its ordinary severity as a second-degree felony, § 782.-07, Fla.Stat. (1981), to a first-degree felony on the ground that the defendant used a firearm during the commission of the offense.
On appeal to the district court, respondent raised two issues: first, that reclassification was improper because section 775.-087 does not provide for it except with regard to the offense charged and here respondent was convicted not of the offense charged but of a lesser included offense; second, that reclassification was improper without a jury finding of the en hancement element of use of a firearm. The district court found that both arguments were correct and that both errors warranted reversal.
Recent decisions of this Court address both issues. With regard to the first point, we quash the decision of the district court of appeal on the authority of Miller v. State, 460 So. 2d 373 (Fla.1984). There we held that the reclassification provisions of section 775.087(1) may apply where the defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense rather than the offense expressly charged.
Regarding the second point, we approve the decision of the district court on the authority of State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1984). There we held that the factual element subjecting the defendant to reclassification under section 775.-087(1) must be found by the trier of fact, precluding judicial reclassification in a jury trial.
The decision of the district court is approved in part and quashed in part, and remanded for disposition consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
ALDERMAN, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For the reasons stated in my dissent to State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1984), I would quash the decision of the district court and remand with instructions that the trial court be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Smith, 470 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…his reclassification provision applies even when the defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense rather than the crime expressly charged, when there is a finding that a firearm was used or possessed in the commission thereof. State v. Smith, 462 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1985). The State correctly asserts that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to life felonies committed prior to October 1, 1983. Section 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1983) states: The guidelines shall be applied to all felonies, except…
-
Lopez v. State, 470 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…rm during the commission of the offense. § 775.087(1), (2), Florida Statutes (1979).2 In the absence óf a jury finding that defendant used a firearm, the court may neither enhance the sentence nor impose a mandatory minimum sentence. State v. Smith, 462 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1985); State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1984); Streeter v. State, 416 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). For these reasons, we vacate the judgment and sentence as to Count I and direct the trial court to enter a judgment in accordance with…
-
Vause v. State, 502 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ant guilty of a crime which necessarily involves the use of a firearm or the jury must specifically find the defendant did in fact use a firearm during the commission of the crime. State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385, 1387 (Fla.1984); State v. Smith, 462 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1985). Use of a firearm is not an essential element of third degree murder. Streeter v. State, 416 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Further, the jury did not specifically find Vause used a firearm during the murder. Therefore, it can be seen the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1984)
- Miller v. State, 460 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1984)
- Smith v. State, 445 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)