WILFRED BEAUBRUM, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant Beaubrum appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm, attempted first degree murder, and use of a weapon during a felony, arguing violations of the one-subject rule, jury instruction on reasonable doubt, and improper conviction for unlawful firearm possession. The court affirmed the convictions but struck the firearm possession conviction as duplicative of the firearm enhancement allegations.
The habitual offender statute does not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution. The standard jury instruction on reasonable doubt is constitutional when it accurately informs the jury of the law. The trial court improperly adjudicated the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm in connection with armed robbery and attempted first degree murder, and those convictions must be struck.
[1] A statute does not violate the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution if all its provisions are reasonably germane to a single legislative purpose.
[2] Standard jury instructions on reasonable doubt are constitutional if they accurately inform the jury of the law.
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“There is no constitutional violation of the one subject rule.”
Establishes the court's holding that the habitual offender statute does not violate Florida's constitutional one-subject requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found defendant guilty of robbery with a firearm, attempted first degree murder, and use of a weapon during the commission of a felony. The tri…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm, attempted first degree murder and use of a weapon during the commission of a felony. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him as a habitual offender. The appellant contends that: 1) the trial court erred in using the habitual offender statute in adjudicating and sentencing him because Section 775.-084, Florida Statutes, (1989) violates the one subject rule of the Florida Constitution, Article III, section 6, 2) the trial court erred in giving the jury the standard jury instructions because its definition of “reasonable doubt” is unconstitutional, and 3) the trial court erred in adjudicating the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm when the firearm was used to enhance the sentence for the attempted first degree murder and armed robbery counts.
There is no constitutional violation of the one subject rule. Jamison v. State, 583 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1991); McCall v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) rev. granted, 17 F.L.W. No. 7, February 14, 1992; Also see Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992); LaMont v. State, 597 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
The trial court properly instructed the jury pursuant to the standard jury instruction when the instruction on reasonable doubt accurately informed the jury of the law. Jackson v. State, 502 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1986); Kennedy v. State, 455 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1984).
The trial court improperly adjudicated the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm in the commission of an armed robbery and attempted first degree murder with a firearm. Cox v. State, 552 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Grant-ham v. State, 545 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1989).
Therefore we strike the convictions and sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In all other respects the convictions, adjudications and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Vegas v. Globe Sec. & CIGNA, 627 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…nation of most fringe benefits, unlike the attempt to eliminate concurrent employment, fits neatly into the formula provided by section 440.14(1)(a), and merely adjusts the required calculation of “total amount of wages.” See Rudd Sod Co. v. Reeves, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). What is more, this court has analyzed the inclusion or noninclusion of fringe benefits in AWW with specific reference to the statutory definition of wages. See Pan American World Airways v. Mash, 573 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. 1st DC…
-
Cable Vision OF Cent. Fla. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Armes, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…he fringe benefits of sick and vacation pay, personal days, employer contributions to pension plan, and free cable television, and remand for a recalculation of AWW. Vegas v. Globe Security, 627 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Rudd Sod Co. v. Reeves, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). SMITH and KAHN, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.…
-
Slater v. State, 625 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…hanced to a life felony because of the possession of a firearm. We disagree as to the first. Adams v. State, 559 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We agree as to the second. Beaubrum v. State, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), quashed in part, 616 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1993); Grantham v. State, 545 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989). Therefore the conviction and sentence under review is affirmed as to the second degree murd…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Jackson v. State, 502 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1986)
- Kemp v. State, 583 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Kennedy v. State, 455 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1984)
- Lamont v. State, 597 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Jamison v. State, 583 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Grantham v. State, 545 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- COX v. State, 552 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)