STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL A. BOYKINS, 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.
Florida appealed a sentence for aggravated assault where the trial court refused to impose a mandatory minimum sentence despite a jury finding that the defendant used a firearm. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by disregarding the jury's factual finding and must apply the statutory minimum mandatory provision.
The trial court has no discretion to disregard a jury's factual finding that a firearm was used when that finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The mandatory minimum sentencing provision of section 775.087(2) must be imposed when the jury has found firearm use.
[1] A jury's affirmative finding of firearm use in the commission of an aggravated assault, supported by competent substantial evidence, compels the sentencing court to apply…
[2] A sentencing court invades the fact-finding function of the jury when it disregards a jury's special interrogatory verdict on the use of a firearm during the commission o…
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“Any person who is convicted of ... aggravated assault ... and who had in his possession a 'firearm,' as defined in s. 790.001(6) ... shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the sentencing provision that the trial court refused to apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoykins was convicted of aggravated assault arising from an altercation over a parking space at Jordan Park Apartments in St. Petersburg. A jury, by s…
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 Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
We review the sentence imposed upon the appellee’s conviction of aggravated assault which arose from an altercation about a parking space at the Jordan Park Apartments in St. Petersburg. By special interrogatory verdict the jury found that the appellee had used a firearm in the commission of the aggravated assault. The trial court adjudicated the appellee guilty of the aggravated assault, but, in sentencing him, the court refused to apply the minimum mandatory provision of section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1993). We reverse.
Section 775.087(2)(a) provides that “[a]ny person who is convicted of ... aggravated assault ... and who had in his possession a ‘firearm,’ as defined in s. 790.001(6) ... shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years.” When the jury returned the special interrogatory verdict asking about use of a “firearm” during the commission of this assault, it answered in the affirmative the question whether the appellee had used a firearm as defined in section 790.001(6). Given the compulsory nature of the language of section 775.087(2), the sentencing court was not free to disregard this factual finding by the jury since it was supported by competent, substantial evidence at trial. Our supreme court has outlined the limited discretion the sentencing court has in like circumstances:
Although a trial judge may make certain findings on matters not associated with the criminal episode when rendering a sentence, it is the jury’s function to be the finder of fact with regard to matters concerning the criminal episode. To allow a judge to find that an accused actually possessed a firearm when committing a felony in order to apply the enhancement or mandatory sentencing provisions of section 775.087 would be an invasion of the jury’s historical function and could lead to a miscarriage of justice
State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385, 1387 (Fla. 1984). Although Overfelt had the opposite circumstance, i.e., the trial court had imposed the minimum mandatory provision without the jury’s finding a firearm had been used, the principle outlined there is equally applicable here. When the sentencing court below refused to impose the minimum mandatory provision, it effectively overruled the jury on the question of use of a firearm during the assault. When it did so, it erred by invading the fact-finding function of the jury.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing to include the minimum mandatory provision of the statute.
ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunbar v. State, 46 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…m sentencing requirement. See State v. Scanes, 973 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); State v. Couch, 896 So. 2d at 799; State v. Calzada-Padron, 708 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State v. Brendell, 656 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Boykins, 647 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Ross, 447 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In Allen v. State, 853 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), our court held that when an oral sentence does not include the applicable mandatory minimum sentence it is an illegal sen…
-
Dedric Gardner v. State, 699 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ies.” Id. (citations omitted); see also State v. Ross, 447 So. 2d 1380, 1382-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)(remanded for resentencing to impose three-year minimum mandatory imprisonment term in light of section 775.087(2)’s clear mandate); State v. Boykins, 647 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(reversing and remanding for resentencing to include three-year minimum mandatory term, in light of compulsory nature of section 775.087(2), where jury found that defendant used firearm in commission of assault), dismissed, 65…
-
Tyrie Leroy Nelms v. State, 717 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Boykins, 647 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Sesler, 386 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). COBB, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1984)