REGINALD E. SANDERS, 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.
Robbery conviction reversed because jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of resisting a merchant, which became a standalone charge under the 1992 amendment to Florida Statutes section 812.015(6).
A defendant charged with robbery is entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of resisting a merchant when the facts support it, particularly after the 1992 statutory amendment eliminated the requirement that the defendant first be convicted of theft.
[1] Following the 1992 amendment to section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes, resisting a merchant became a standalone offense no longer requiring a prior theft conviction, and a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, resists”
Language added by 1992 amendment to section 812.015(6), eliminating the prior requirement of a theft conviction
Appellant was convicted of robbery for offenses occurring on September 2, 1993. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included of…
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 Resisting A Merchant cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges his robbery conviction on the grounds that the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of resisting a merchant. He also maintains that the court compounded that error by preventing defense counsel from informing the jury of that offense, thus precluding appellant from presenting his defense to the jury. We agree.
Although K.C. v. State, 524 So. 2d 658 (Fla.1988) and the version of the statute interpreted therein, section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1991), previously required that the defendant be convicted of theft before he or she could be charged with resisting a merchant, the statute, apparently in response to K.C., was amended in 1992 to eliminate that requirement. The following emphasized language was added: “An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, resists” and the language “and who is subsequently found to be guilty of theft of the subject property is guilty of’ was eliminated. See § 812.015(6), Fla.Stat. (1993). Given the fact that this amendment took effect on October 1, 1992, and appellant’s offenses occurred on September 2, 1993, the amendment applied to him. Since the facts here supported such a charge, appellant’s conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial in which the jury may be instructed on resisting a merchant.
FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duval v. State, 688 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…arged.” Wilcott v. State, 509 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla.1987). Because the allegations in the information and the facts adduced at trial supported this lesser charge, it was error for the trial court to deny the defendant’s request. See Sanders v. State, 654 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s robbery conviction and remand for a new trial in which the jury may be instructed on resisting a merchant. Reversed and remanded. PARKER, AC.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.…
-
Maldanado v. State, 691 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…d offense of robbery. Appellant capably points out that because the facts adduced at trial supported this lesser charge, it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s request. See Wilcott v. State, 509 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1987); Sanders v. State, 654 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We reverse defendant’s robbery conviction, and remand for a new trial because the jury should have been instructed on the lesser-included offense of resisting a merchant. See Duval v. State, 688 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); La…
-
Lamb v. State, 679 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…12.015(6), Florida Statutes, the charge of resisting a merchant is a lesser-included offense of robbery. Because the facts adduced at trial supported this lesser charge, it was error for the trial court to deny Appellant’s request. Sanders v. State, 654 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). GLICKSTEIN, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- K.C. v. State, 524 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1988)