WILLIAM EDWARD BATES, 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.
William Bates was convicted of first-degree armed robbery after holding a nut driver (disguised as a gun) during a convenience store robbery. The court reversed his conviction, holding that a nut driver is not a deadly weapon under Florida law because Bates neither used nor threatened to use it in a violent manner, and remanded for conviction of second-degree robbery instead.
A nut driver is not a deadly weapon because Bates neither used nor threatened to use it violently—he merely claimed it was a gun. A nut driver used for its designed purpose would not cause death or great bodily harm. Additionally, under the principle of ejusdem generis, a nut driver does not fit the statutory definition of a weapon. The conviction for first-degree armed robbery is reversed and remanded for second-degree robbery.
[1] An object is a deadly weapon if, when used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design, it will or is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
[2] An object becomes a deadly weapon if its sole modern use is to cause great bodily harm.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A 'deadly weapon' has been defined as 'any instrument that, when used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will or is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.'”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes a deadly weapon in Florida law—focused on the instrument's ordinary use and design.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBates entered a convenience store and approached the clerk with an object covered by a rag, stating he had a '.22' and demanding money. The clerk neve…
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 Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Bates has presented three contentions in support of an effort to reverse his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him but we find that only one is meritorious. He was charged with armed robbery with a deadly weapon.
Bates entered a convenience store and approached the clerk with an object covered by a rag and stated that he had a “.22” and demanded she give him the store’s money. The clerk never saw the object within the rag and the state conceded that a “.22” was never found. Following his arrest, Bates admitted that he held a “nut driver” under the rag.
Bates was charged with robbery in the first degree, a crime dependent upon the offender commiting the act while carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon, punishable by a term of years not to exceed life. § 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). There is no dispute that Bates was not carrying a firearm when he committed the robbery. The question, however, is whether the nut driver is a “deadly weapon” as those words are used in section 812.13(2)(a). A “deadly weapon” has been defined as “any instrument that, when used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will or is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.” Depasquale v. State, 438 So. 2d 159, 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Moreover, “[a]n object becomes a deadly weapon if its sole modern use is to cause great bodily harm.” Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Bates, however, neither used nor threatened to use the nut driver in a violent way. He merely stated that it was a gun he was holding. A nut driver when used for its designed purpose would not cause death or great bodily harm. We caution, however, that the result we reach is tied entirely to the manner in which Bates employed the nut driver. Had he threatened to use it as a bludgeon that could have resulted in death or great bodily harm, a first degree conviction would have been appropriate. McCray v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Our case is similar to McCray. McCray was convicted of robbery with a firearm.
The evidence disclosed that he was, in fact, carrying only a cigarette lighter shaped like a gun. It was determined, however, that the lighter did not qualify as a weapon or a deadly weapon.
The court noted that “a cigarette lighter might be so classified if, by its use or threatened use, death or great bodily harm is likely to be produced_” 358 So. 2d at 617.
Furthermore, a first degree conviction cannot stand on the ground that Bates was carrying a weapon. A “weapon” means “any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or common pocket knife.” § 790.001(13), Fla.Stat. (1987). Following the principal of ejusdem generis, the nut driver does not fit the statutory definition of a weapon.
Bates’ conviction for armed robbery with a deadly weapon is reversed. This matter is remanded for entry of a judgment of second degree robbery pursuant to section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1987). Bates should be resentenced accordingly. In all other aspects this matter is affirmed.
PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…e decided without considering cases that address other weapons. The case law reflects competing, if not conflicting, approaches for replica weapons, toy guns, and items that were used by defendants as if they were deadly weapons. In Bates v. State, 561 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the defendant used a “nut driver” in a robbery. He concealed most of this device so that it looked like a .22 caliber pistol and told the victim that he had a gun. This court held that, as a matter of law, no deadly weapon was us…
-
Butler v. State, 602 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…. “Robbers commonly merely imply the possession of a weapon in order to bolster their threat. [However, t]hat implication cannot amount to proof of the possession.” Ryder v. State, 464 So. 2d 1324, 1325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Thus, in Bates v. State, 561 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the defendant was charged with robbery while carrying “a firearm or other deadly weapon,” in violation of Section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes. At trial, the evidence established that the defendant had “entered a convenience st…
-
Alfraedo Williams v. State, 651 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ective fear of the victim or intent of the perpetrator. Streetman, 455 So. 2d at 1082. The question in this case is whether the coffee was of a nature or used in a manner that it could have resulted in death or great bodily harm. See Bates v. State, 561 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (determining that a nut driver was not a deadly weapon because of the manner in which Bates employed the nut driver). In addition, the state must prove more than that a particular person suffered some harm. The state must prove th…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eldridge A. McCRAY v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Depasquale v. State, 438 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)