DARRYL WILLIAMS, 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 held that the trial court erred in reclassifying the offense of attempted robbery with a firearm to a first-degree felony for sentencing purposes, but affirmed the convictions.
The appellant was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court reclassified the attempted robb…
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 Essential Element Of Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Darryl Williams, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty by a jury of the crimes of attempted robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. We find no merit in the appellant’s contentions concerning his trial and, accordingly, affirm the convictions. We do find, however, that the appellant was improperly sentenced and, therefore, remand for resentencing.
The appellant contends, and we agree, that the trial court erred in reclassifying the offense of attempted robbery with a firearm to a first degree felony in preparing the guidelines scoresheet. Before a court may reclassify a felony, it must be shown that a defendant is charged with a felony for which the use of a weapon or firearm is not an essential element, and the jury must make a factual finding that the defendant used a weapon or firearm. Sec tion 775.087(1), Fla.Stat. (1987); Franklin v. State, 541 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1991). In this case, the information charged the appellant with carrying a firearm in the course of the attempted robbery, and the use of a firearm was an essential element. The trial court, accordingly, erred when it reclassified the offense, a second degree felony, as a first degree felony. Sections 812.13(2)(a), 777.04(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987).
We, accordingly, remand for resentencing based upon a corrected scoresheet reflecting the attempted robbery with a firearm conviction as a second degree felony. If the appellant is once again placed upon probation as part of his sentence, we remind the trial court that conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the offense for which a defendant is convicted. Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979). See also Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anton v. State, 976 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…hat the trial court had improperly reclassified his conviction for attempted robbery with a firearm to a first-degree felony “[bjecause the carrying of a firearm was an essential element of the charged offense.” Id. at 749 (citing Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). This error did not affect Mr. Anton’s sentence for the attempted robbery offense because the sentence imposed was within the permitted range for a second-degree felony under the habitual offender statute. Id. at 749-50. Thus we…
-
State v. Anton, 700 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…nviction for attempted robbery with a firearm to a first-degree felony. Because the carrying of a firearm was an essential element of the charged offense, we agree that the trial court should not have reclassified the offense. See Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, the trial court sentenced Anton to thirty years in prison as a habitual offender for attempted robbery with a firearm. The sentence is therefore proper as it is within the permitted range for a [*750] second-degree felon…
-
Young v. State, 787 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…Fla. Stat. (1991). Therefore, this sentence may be illegal. On remand, the trial court shall either resentence Young on count two within the maximum allowed or attach a portion of the record that refutes Young’s claim. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 590 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (stating that enhancement for use of a firearm under section 775.087 is improper on attempted robbery with a firearm conviction). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1991)
- Franklin v. State, 541 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)