ANTHONY LEWIS, 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.
Anthony Lewis appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery, and burglary of a structure with a firearm. Although his counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues existed, the court affirmed his life sentence despite finding the trial judge made inaccurate statements regarding gain-time eligibility, because the intent to impose a life sentence was unambiguous.
The court affirmed the judgment and sentence because the trial court's intent to impose a life sentence was unambiguous, despite the inaccurate legal statements regarding gain-time eligibility.
[1] Constructive or vicarious possession of a firearm is sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with a firearm.
[2] A defendant may be convicted as a principal for aggravated battery under Section 784.045(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes, even if the defendant did not actually carry the fire…
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“Constructive or vicarious possession of a firearm is sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with a firearm”
Establishes the legal principle allowing conviction based on constructive possession rather than actual possession of the weapon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was convicted as a principal in crimes where his accomplice, not Lewis himself, actually carried the firearm. Lewis was sentenced to life impris…
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 Constructive Possession Of Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that no good faith argument could be made on appeal. Appellant was convicted as a principal of robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery, and burglary of a structure with a firearm. The record indicates Appellant’s accomplice, not Appellant, actually carried the firearm during the commission of the offenses. Constructive or vicarious possession of a firearm is sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with a firearm, Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although we have found no case specifically discussing whether a defendant can be convicted, as a principal, of aggravated battery under Section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes, when he did not actually carry the firearm, that is apparently the case. See Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1988); Gillis v. State, 486 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
During sentencing, the trial judge made the following statement:
You have a score sheet that without even considering HFO puts you at life. In other words, your possible sentence is precisely what the maximum sentence is that I could impose upon you for the offense you’re charged with. For someone your age for as serious an offense as you are before me for, that’s unusual, and what it indicates to me again is that I really don’t have discretion on that, sir. I mean, the sentence that I would impose upon you today based upon the score sheet is life and so I need to make the next determination of whether or not that is an appropriate sentence or whether or not it is appropriate that you be sentenced as habitual felony offender to life. And I understand that the distinction between the two is that you will not serve for life either way, but what will happen is that if I were to sentence you as a habitual felony offender, you would have less gain time, and so it means you would be behind bars for a long period.
The above statement concerning the effect of imposing a life sentence and the availability of gain-time is inaccurate. Under current law, one serving a life sentence, whether pursuant to guidelines sentencing or habitual offender sentencing, is ineligible for parole or gain-time. See Sections 775.-084(4)(e), 921.001(10), 944.275(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991); Wemett v. State, 567 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1990); Burdick v. State, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) approved in part and quashed in part 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992); see also Dolan v. State, 618 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, because the trial court’s intent to impose a life sentence is unambiguous, we affirm the judgment and sentence.
ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Johnson v. State, 9 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ears in prison. Actually, the court failed to perceive that with an HFO life sentence defendant would not be eligible for parole. § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (1991); Brown v. State, 843 So. 2d 930, 932 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing Lewis v. State, 625 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) and recognizing there is no parole from a life sentence); Brown v. State, 585 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Burdick v. State, 584 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), quashed in part on other grounds, 594 So. 2d 267 (…
-
Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…e other person did. Constructive or vicarious possession8 of a firearm is sufficient to support a conviction involving a firearm. Jacobs v. State, 742 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ellis v. State, 733 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Lewis v. State, 625 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The second special instruction quoted above does not appear to be necessary in this case. The evidence established that the Luger handgun in the front seat where Wilson had been sitting, was in fact loaded and was very real. Th…
-
Laisha L. Landrum v. State, 163 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…JJ„ Concur. . Ms. Landrum’s sentence of life in prison was imposed on February 20, 2006. . For persons convicted on or after October 1, 1983, there is no parole from a life sentence in Florida. See § 921.001(10), Fla. Stat. (2004); Lewis v. State, 625 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). . Since this court decided Toye, the Florida Supreme Court has held that Miller must be given retroactive effect. Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015). . Starks was recently disapproved on other grounds in…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1988)
- Wemett v. State, 567 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1990)
- Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Dolan v. State, 618 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gillis v. State, 486 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)