STANLEY WOODS A/K/A ANTHONY D. CLARK, 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 held that the trial court erred in enhancing the scoring of an armed robbery conviction based on wearing a mask and in imposing a minimum mandatory sentence for armed robbery when only a knife was possessed.
Stanley Woods was convicted of robbery and armed robbery. The trial court scored the robbery as a first-degree felony due to the defendant wearing a m…
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
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
Stanley Woods was convicted of both robbery (Shell Station) and armed robbery (Pizza Hut). We affirm the convictions but reverse for resentencing.
On Woods’ scoresheet, the armed robbery was scored as the primary offense. The “additional offense at sentencing” (the Shell robbery), a second degree felony, was scored as though it had been reclassified as a first degree felony because Woods wore a mask during the robbery. See generally section 775.0845, Florida Statutes (1993). We find that to be error. Although the testimony indicated that he did, in fact, wear a mask during the Shell robbery, this enhancement factor was not charged in the information nor did the jury make such a finding. In addition, even though the mask, if properly pled and proved, would justify enhancement, it does not “reclassify” the offense. See Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The subtraction of the erroneous points results in a lower guideline range.
We also find the court erred in including a minimum mandatory term pursuant to section 775.087(2) in Woods’ sentence for armed robbery. This provision requires as a condition for such minimum mandatory sentence that the defendant have in his possession a firearm or “destructive device” (bomb). In this case, Woods had only a knife in his possession during the Pizza Hut robbery.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for resentencing.
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabal v. State, 678 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1996)…an enhanced penalty for wearing a mask while committing a felony, acted to reclassify the underlying felony to a distinct, separate crime of the next higher degree. In reaching its decision, the district court certified conflict with Woods v. State, 654 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).1 For the reasons expressed, we agree with the district court decisions in Woods, Archibald, and Spi-cer, and quash t…
-
Cabal v. State, 656 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. We affirm based on the authority of Jennings v. State, 498 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We also certify conflict with Woods v. State, 654 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Affirmed; conflict certified.…
-
Blas Duran, Jr. v. State, 738 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…that the plain language of section 775.0845, which is entitled ‘Wearing mask while committing offense; enhanced penalties ’ (emphasis added), requires that the penalty be increased rather than the offense reclassified.” See also Woods v. State, 654 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Notwithstanding, the State argues that the sentence is still lawful as the defendant was sentenced to twenty years as…
Authorities Cited
- Spicer v. State, 615 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Archibald v. State, 646 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)