FRANCISCO GONZALES, 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.
The court affirmed convictions on counts I, II, III, and VI but reversed count V (resisting arrest with violence) because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the effect of voluntary intoxication on specific intent, and remanded for correction of a sentencing discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence.
Count V (resisting arrest with violence) must be reversed because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on how voluntary intoxication affects the defendant's ability to form the specific intent required for that crime.
[1] Resisting arrest with violence is a specific intent crime requiring jury instruction on the effect of voluntary intoxication on the defendant's ability to form that inten…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Count V, resisting an arrest with violence, is a specific intent crime.”
The court explains the nature of the crime at issue and why the jury instruction was required.
Gonzales was convicted of multiple counts including resisting arrest with violence. A discrepancy existed between the trial court's oral pronouncement…
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 Resisting Arrest With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We affirm the judgment and sentence of Counts I, II, III, and VI, and we reverse Count V. Count V, resisting an arrest with violence, is a specific intent crime. Colson v. State, 73 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1954). The trial court committed reversible error by failing to give the requested instruction to the jury regarding the effect of voluntary intoxication on the defendant’s ability to form a specific intent. Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981).
Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentence as to Count I. A defendant’s sentence is properly what the trial court intended it to be. See United States v. Purcell, 715 F. 2d 561, 563 (11th Cir.1983). It appears to be clear from the sentence and from the sentencing guidelines scoresheet that the trial judge intended to sentence the defendant to seventeen years on Count I, yet the transcript of the oral pronouncement of sentence puts the sentence at seven years. The trial court should review the record, determine whether there was an error in the transcription, and correct the record to reflect the intended sentence. See Ferguson v. State, 460 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Colson v. State, 73 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1954)
- United States v. Purcell, 715 F.2d 561 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Ferguson v. State, 460 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)