THOMAS GLENN AMRHEIN, 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 affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for jury consideration of aiding and abetting and that the Independent Act Doctrine issue was not preserved for appeal.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of ac…
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 Independent Act Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Thomas Glenn Amrhein appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and kidnapping. He raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and second, that the trial court further erred in failing to instruct the jury on the “Independent Act Doctrine.”
As to the first point, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether Amrhein participated in this crime by aiding and abetting. We therefore affirm his convictions on this ground.
As to the second point, Amrhein’s trial counsel did not request an instruction on the “Independent Act Doctrine” and did not object to it not being given. Thus, he cannot raise the issue for the first time on direct appeal. McKinney v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1991); Gidden v. State, 573 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We affirm Amrhein’s convictions without prejudice to raise this issue by a 3.850 motion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teal v. State, 658 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…(Fla.1982). However, here, unlike Bryant, where defendant’s trial counsel failed to request an “independent act” instruction, and did not object to it not being given, he cannot raise the issue for the first time on direct appeal. Amrhein v. State, 622 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Thus, we find no merit to defendant’s first issue on appeal. However, we do find merit to defendant’s second issue on appeal. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.988(c), the permissive incareerative ceiling for committin…
-
State v. Dunn, 9 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…[W]hen an appellate court reverses a departure sentence because there were no written reasons, the court must remand for resentencing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines.” 561 So. 2d 554, 556 (Fla.1990); see also Henderson v. State, 622 So. 2d 172, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (reversing the defendant’s departure sentence due to the trial court’s failure to provide reasons for departure and remanding “for resentencing within the guidelines, with no possibility of departure therefrom”); State v. Ti…
Authorities Cited
- Boris McKINNEY v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1991)
- Gidden v. State, 573 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)