GUADALUPE GONZALEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1991-09-12
No. 77078
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur., McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion.
585 So. 2d 932 Florida Supreme Court (1991) Caution
Cited by 57 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court held that a firearm enhancement under section 775.087(1)(b) is improper when the use of a firearm is an essential element of the crime of conviction. Gonzalez was convicted of third-degree murder with a firearm, and the trial court improperly enhanced the sentence by one degree based on firearm use.


Holding

The enhancement was improper because firearm use was an essential element of third-degree murder with a firearm for which Gonzalez was convicted. Section 775.087(1)(b) does not permit reclassification when the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element of the crime charged.


Headnotes

[1] A felony cannot be reclassified to a higher degree under section 775.087(1) if the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element of the felony for which the defendan…

[2] The crime of aggravated battery with the use of a deadly weapon is not subject to reclassification under section 775.087(1) because the use of a weapon is an essential el…

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

Key Quotes

“the crime of aggravated battery with the use of a deadly weapon is not subject to reclassification because the use of a weapon is an essential element of the crime”

Establishes the core holding that crimes with weapon use as essential elements cannot be enhanced under the statute

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Gonzalez was charged with second-degree murder with a firearm and three counts of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. He was convicted of t…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We review Gonzalez v. State, 569 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), which directly and expressly conflicts with Franklin v. State, 541 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).1 We quash in part the decision below. Gonzalez was charged with one count of second-degree murder with a firearm, and three counts of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. He was convicted of the lesser included offenses of third-degree murder with a firearm, and three counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court enhanced the third-degree murder conviction, which is a second-degree felony when committed without a firearm, to a first-degree felony pursuant to section 775.087(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987).2 Gonzalez appealed the enhancement, asserting that use of a firearm is not a valid reason for enhancement under these circumstances because use of a firearm was an essential element of the crime for which he was convicted. The district court affirmed but acknowledged conflict with Franklin v. State.

We find that this issue is controlled by Lareau v. State, 573 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1991), where we held that although aggravated battery causing great bodily harm can be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087(1) because the use of a weapon is not necessary to cause great bodily harm, the crime of aggravated battery with the use of a deadly weapon is not subject to reclassification because the use of a weapon is an essential element of the crime. In this case, the jury was instructed that the use of a firearm was an essential element of third-degree felony murder.3 Rather than reiterating the analysis, we adopt Judge Anstead’s opinion on this issue as our opinion in this case, Gonzalez, 569 So. 2d at 784-85 (An-stead, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Franklin; and conclude that the enhancement was improper on these facts.

We approve Franklin and quash the decision below to the extent that it conflicts with this decision. We vacate Gonzalez’s sentence for third-degree murder and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion.

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

. Section 775.087(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), provides in relevant part:

775.087 Possession or use of weapon; aggravated battery; felony reclassification; minimum sentence.—

(1) Unless otherwise provided by law, whenever a person is charged with a felony, except a felony in which the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element, and during the commission of such felony the defendant carries, displays, uses, threatens, or attempts to use any weapon or firearm, or during the commission of such felony the defendant commits an aggravated battery, the felony for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:

(b) In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree.

. At oral argument, the state advised the Court that the jury had been instructed on the improper underlying felony to third-degree murder. The defendant did not raise this issue at trial or on appeal nor does he ask us to address it now. Moreover, the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm which is an appropriate underlying felony to third-degree murder. Therefore, we do not address this issue.

Dissent
McDONALD, Justice,

McDONALD, Justice,

dissenting.

Had Gonzalez been charged by information or indictment of third-degree murder by committing an underlying felony of aggravated battery using a firearm, I would concur. His charge was second-degree murder using a firearm, which is a life felony. At his request, the jury was charged with the lesser-degree crime of third-degree murder. Third-degree murder without use of a firearm is a second-degree felony, but if enhanced becomes a first-degree felony. The jury convicted of this lesser charge of third-degree, but found it was accomplished with a gun.

The jury was aware of the degrees of crime and, in effect, pardoned Gonzalez from a life felony to a first-degree felony. I believe the trial judge correct in treating it as such and under these circumstances disagree that Lareau v. State, 573 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1991), controls.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (29 total)

  • White v. State, 714 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1998)
    …s held that a crime may not be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087(1) where the use of the firearm is an essential element of the crime, or the crime is charged as requiring the use of a firearm and the jury is so instructed. See Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla.1991); see also Lareau v. State, 573 So. 2d 813, 815 (Fla.1991). We held in Gonzalez and Lareau that it was clear that the legislature did not intend to enhance felonies involving the use of a firearm where such use is already inherent in…
  • Douglas v. State, 878 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2004)
    …at reclassification of the defendant's attempted armed robbery conviction because the defendant used a deadly weapon was improper because "attempted armed robbery is a felony in which the use of a weapon is an essential element”); Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla.1991) (holding it was impermissible to enhance the defendant's third-degree murder conviction to a first-degree felony based on the use of a firearm where "the jury was instructed that the use of a firearm was an essential element of third…
  • Davis v. State, 884 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
    …odily harm to the victim by discharging a firearm. Because the information did not allege that Mr. Davis caused great bodily harm to the victim, the use of the firearm was an essential element of the aggravated battery charge. See Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla.1991) (“We find that this issue is controlled by Lareau v. State, 573 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1991), where we held that although aggravated battery causing great bodily harm can be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087(1) because the use of a weapo…

Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw