STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES MICHAEL SNOWDEN, 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 resolved a conflict between district court decisions by holding that grand theft is not a lesser included offense of third-degree murder, even when grand theft serves as the underlying felony for the murder conviction. The Court quashed the district court's reversal and reinstated Snowden's grand theft conviction and sentence.
Grand theft is not a lesser included offense of third-degree murder. When grand theft serves as the underlying felony for third-degree murder, separate convictions and sentences for both offenses are permissible because each offense requires proof of an element the other does not.
[1] A conviction for grand theft cannot stand as a lesser included offense of third-degree murder when grand theft requires proof of an element that third-degree murder does…
[2] Separate convictions and sentences are permissible for two or more offenses if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not.
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“there cannot be separate convictions and sentences for two or more offenses when only one crime has been committed”
States the rule from Bell v. State that the district court applied in reversing the grand theft conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSnowden was charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery. At defense counsel's request, the trial court instructed the jury that grand theft cou…
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 Statutory Elements Of Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We granted the petition to review Snowden v. State, 449 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), because of conflict with Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Snowden was charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery. At the request of defense counsel the trial court instructed the jury that grand theft could be considered as an underlying felony of third-degree murder. The jury convicted Snowden of lesser included offenses on both counts of third-degree murder and grand theft. The district court of appeal reversed the conviction and set aside the sentence for grand theft on the authority of Bell v. State, 437 So. 2d 1057 (Fla.1983), which holds that there cannot be separate convictions and sentences for two or more offenses when only one crime has been committed.
The state argues that grand theft, as the underlying felony of third-degree murder, is not a lesser included offense. We agree and have recently put this issue to rest in State v. Enmund, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1985), and Vause v. State, 476 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1985).* The decision under review is therefore quashed with directions to affirm Snowden’s conviction of and sentence for grand theft.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., concurs in result only.
ADKINS and OVERTON, JJ., dissent.
*
It should also be noted for future reference that section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1983), as amended by chapter 83-156, section 1, Laws of Florida, now incorporates the rule from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). This section now clearly expresses legislative intent that there be separate convictions and sentences for separate criminal offenses "if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial." Thus, by statutory definition, there is no lesser included offense when each offense contains a statutory element that the other does not have. Conversely, when each statutory element of an offense is contained in the statutory elements of a second offense, then the former offense is a lesser included offense of the latter offense. Henceforth, the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (1981), which set forth what had heretofore been lesser included offenses, must be read and modified in light of this legislative decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…e Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Davis, 559 So. 2d at 1279; Scott v. State, 550 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review dismissed, 560 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1990); Snowden v. State, 449 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), quashed on other grounds, 476 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1985); Shead v. State, 367 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We conclude now, however, that recent amendments to section 775.084, particularly those effected by chapter 88-131, section 6, Laws of Florida, recent supreme court decisions, notably B…
-
Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…reasons mentioned above, the sequential conviction requirement insured that the defendant had an opportunity to reform following his initial felony conviction. See Snowden v. State, 449 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), quashed on other grounds, 476 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1985). Where habituali-zation was based upon misdemeanors, it was at least implicit in the language “twice previously convicted” that the offenses be committed separately and that the convictions be obtained in separate proceedings. See Shead,…
-
State v. Rodriquez, 500 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1986)…erlying the discarded “single transaction rule” and the rules and practices implementing that rule and, I add, the outdated Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. See footnote to State v. Snowden, 476 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1985). Although legislative intent controls as to the elements of offenses and as to separate or accumulative punishment for violation of multiple crimes it has absolutely nothing to do with interpretation of the double jeopardy clauses of the…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Bell v. State, 437 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Enmund, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983)
- Snowden v. State, 449 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Vause v. State, 476 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1985)