B.S.W., 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 convicting the appellant of battery because the charging petition did not contain the elements of that crime.
The appellant was convicted of battery based on a petition that outlined the crime of robbery. Battery is a Category 2 lesser-included offense of robb…
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 Elements Of A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
B.S.W. challenges his conviction and sentence for battery, a violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1993). He argues that since the allegations of the state’s petition only outline the crime of robbery it was error for the trial court to find him guilty of battery. He is correct because battery is a Category 2 lesser-included offense of robbery. See Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim) 295. For the trial court to convict upon proper proof of a Category 2 lesser-included crime, the allegations of the charging document must also contain the elements of such crime. See Jaramillo v. State, 659 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Gay v. State, 432 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Because the petition in this case did not contain the elements of the crime of battery, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of that crime.
We reverse the conviction, which moots the sentencing issue,1 and remand for further proceedings. On remand the state may again prosecute the appellant but only for battery. See Jaramillo.
CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur. . Although we do not reach the sentencing issue because of our disposition, and because a similar issue may arise on remand, we note that C.F. v. State, 603 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), is the proper precedent for the sentencing scheme imposed by the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
State v. Kindle, 782 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ielded from suppression. See Gomez v. State, 748 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev. dismissed, 762 So. 2d 916 (Fla.2000); State v. Parrish, 731 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); State v. Holland, 680 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State v. Cromatie, 668 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Castro v. State, 755 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). But if the stop is illegal, consent to search thereafter given is generally considered invalid. See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Jordan…
-
Mauldin v. State, 696 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ed assault, and the elements of battery were not charged in the information, appellant was improperly convicted on a charge not made in the indictment. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.), Schedule of Lesser Included Of [*802] fenses; B.S.W. v. State, 668 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We, accordingly, reverse and remand. On remand, the state may file an amended information and retry appellant on the offense of battery. See Jaramillo v. State, 659 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Velasquez. See also Von Deck v…
-
State v. Breed, 917 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…home, but that is not a basis to invalidate the search. Once the DOT officers requested and obtained permission to search the vehicle or a person, they could detain all occupants of the vehicle until the search was completed. See State v. Cromatie, 668 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In this case, Hunter received consent from the Breeds to search their persons and the motor home for contraband, and Hunter’s partner, Officer Pelton, searched the mqtor home. While a search lasting two to three hours may be con…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- GAY v. State, 432 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Efram Jaramillo v. State, 659 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- C.F. v. State, 603 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)