ROBERT LEE WATSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence where the defendant received a mandatory minimum firearm sentence based on vicarious possession rather than actual possession.
A minimum mandatory sentence for firearm possession cannot be imposed based on vicarious possession; the defendant must have actual possession.
[1] A minimum mandatory sentence for firearm possession cannot be imposed upon a defendant based on vicarious possession; actual possession is required.
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“It is well settled that the minimum mandatory sentence cannot be imposed for vicarious possession of a firearm.”
Court stating the controlling legal principle regarding mandatory minimum sentences for firearm possession.
Watson was convicted of armed robbery and received a three-year minimum mandatory sentence for firearm possession, but his co-defendant, not Watson, h…
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 Vicarious Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Lee Watson timely appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Watson claims that although he received a three-year minimum mandatory sentence for firearm possession during an armed robbery, the code-fendant, and not Watson, had actual possession of the firearm. It is well settled that the minimum mandatory sentence cannot be imposed for vicarious possession of a firearm. See Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1977); Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The trial judge summarily denied the motion, and failed to attach to his order portions of the record or file that refute Watson’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Watson’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that Watson is entitled to no relief, the court shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receipt of the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court should again deny Watson’s motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…sessed firearm); Allen v. State, 598 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800 challenging minimum mandatory portion of sentence on basis that defendant did not possess firearm during commission of offense); Watson v. State, 525 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (same).…
-
Ahedo v. State, 603 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ed robberies with a firearm. He alleged in his motion that it was his code-fendant who possessed the firearm and therefore he' should not have received the minimum mandatories. See Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Watson v. State, 525 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). The trial court denied the motion without attaching the plea or sentencing transcript. The judgments and sentences attached to the order do not refute appellant’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial and rema…
-
Master Rubio Allen v. State, 598 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…h was a part of his twelve-year sentence for robbery with a firearm. He alleges he did not possess a firearm during the robbery and therefore the minimum mandatory is improper. See Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Watson v. State, 525 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Appellant attached to his motion portions of the record that appear to support his contention that he did not possess a firearm. Even though the trial court in its order made a finding, it failed to attach to its order any portio…
Authorities Cited
- Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1977)
- Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)