ERIC GARNER, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Eric Garner's conviction for third-degree murder but reversed his sentence, holding that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence based on firearm use when that use was an essential element of the crime, and failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
The court held that where firearm use is an essential element of the crime of conviction, firearm use cannot serve as a basis for sentence enhancement. Additionally, the court held that absent contemporaneous written reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines, the trial court must impose a guideline sentence on remand, with no possibility of departure.
[1] A sentence enhancement based on the use of a firearm is improper when the use of a firearm is an essential element of the underlying offense.
[2] A trial court's failure to enter contemporaneous written reasons for an upward departure sentence mandates a sentence within the permitted guidelines upon remand.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Where the use of a firearm is an essential element of the crime for which a defendant is convicted, use of a firearm is not a valid reason for enhancement.”
Establishes the core legal principle prohibiting firearm-based sentence enhancement when firearm use is essential to the offense of conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarner, a juvenile at the time of the offense, was charged with second-degree murder with a firearm. A jury found him guilty of the lesser included of…
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 Felony Reclassification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s judgment, but reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance herewith. While we conclude appellant’s attacks on his judgment are meritless and do not warrant discussion, the trial court did err in reclassifying third-degree murder from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony based on use of a firearm where use of a firearm was an essential element of the offense, and in departing from the sentencing guidelines.
Appellant, a juvenile at the time of his offense, was charged with second-degree murder with a firearm. The jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of murder in the third degree with a firearm and the trial court so adjudicated him, denied his motion for new trial, and sentenced him to a thirty-year term of incarceration with a three-year mandatory minimum.
Appellant argues and the state concedes that reclassification of the offense of which the jury adjudged him guilty from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony pursuant to section 775.-087(l)(b), Florida Statutes, was error. Where the use of a firearm is an essential element of the crime for which a defendant is convicted, use of a firearm is not a valid reason for enhancement. Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1991). Appellant was convicted of third-degree murder with a firearm; therefore, his sentence should not have been enhanced based on the use of a firearm.
We reverse this point on appeal and remand for resentencing with a recalculated scoresheet listing the primary offense as a second-degree felony. Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (defendant entitled to sentencing based on correctly calculated score-sheet), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 286 (Fla.1991). Appellant next argues that because the trial court failed to enter a contemporaneous written order to support an upward departure sentence, it must impose a guideline sentence on remand for resentencing. Resentencing with no possibility of departure is mandated under Owens v. State, 598 So. 2d 64 (Fla.1992).
While the state proposes that the trial court be allowed to depart upon remand because the remand is based on improper reliance on an enhancement statute, appellant correctly counters that this point on appeal is separate from his first point. Whether the trial court departed on an incorrectly scored offense, rather than a correctly scored offense, is irrelevant to the fact that it departed and failed to enter contemporaneously written reasons for its departure. The failure bars a departure sentence on remand for any reason.
Hence, the state’s proffer of additional reasons for departure is immaterial and we reverse and remand for a sentence within the permitted guidelines.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Minor v. State, 707 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…burglary statute which specifically involves use of a firearm, it was impermissible to apply the firearm enhancement statute, section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes, to accomplish any additional enhancement. Defendant also relies on Garner v. State, 613 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and Franklin v. State, 541 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1991), but those cases are not on point. In Franklin v. State, defendant was convicted of third-degree murder, see § 782…
Authorities Cited
- Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Gonzalez v. State, 585 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1991)
- Owens v. State, 598 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1992)