CHARLES ORANGE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Charles Orange for first-degree murder and related offenses. The court found sufficient evidence that Orange acted in concert with a codefendant and that the trial court properly complied with statutory requirements for sentencing a juvenile as an adult.
The court held that there was abundant substantial competent evidence that Orange was acting in concert with his codefendant against the driver and other passengers. The court also held that the trial court fully complied with the statutory requirements for sentencing a juvenile as an adult.
[1] A trial court properly denies a motion for judgment of acquittal when substantial competent evidence supports the defendant's participation in a crime with a codefendant.
[2] A defendant may be held liable for the lethal acts of a co-felon if those acts are in furtherance of the common design or unlawful act the parties set out to accomplish.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 abundant substantial competent evidence in the record that defendant was not acting alone against only one of the car’s occupants, but was, in fact, acting in concert with his codefendant against the driver and other passengers.”
Establishes the court's finding of sufficient evidence for conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Orange was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, and firearm offenses. The prosecution presented evid…
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 Juveniles as Adults cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Orange appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for first degree murder, aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, and firearm offenses. We affirm.
The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. There is abundant substantial competent evidence in the record that defendant was not acting alone against only one of the car’s occupants, but was, in fact, acting in concert with his codefendant against the driver and other passengers.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions. See Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla.1982) (felony murder rule and law of principles combine to make felon liable for acts of co-felon; “lethal act must be in furtherance or prosecution of the common design or unlawful act the parties set out to accomplish”). In sentencing defendant as an adult, the trial court fully complied with the requirements of section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1991).
Section 39.059(7) requires the sentencing court to make specific written findings that address each of the five criteria listed in the statute. The written findings must refer to the record, and cannot simply track the language of the statute. Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
However, section 39.-059(7) does not require that “certain specific language be used as to each of the factors to be considered.” McDaniels v. State, 583 So. 2d 349, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In this case, the trial court made specific written findings on each statutory criterion, and referred to the record evidence that supported each finding. Although the findings were brief, they were sufficiently complete and precise to comply with the statute.
Moreover, the record reflects that the trial court considered the extensive evidence presented in the predisposition report. See McDaniels, 583 So. 2d at 351 (“In order to sustain the sentencing of a juvenile as an adult, the record must reflect that the trial court considered each of the statutory criteria_”).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Aronson, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- Amador v. Valdez, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Ervin v. State, 561 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Chinaer McDANIELS v. State, 583 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)