RODNEY L. WILLIAMSON, 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 defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder under both attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder theories. After the Florida Supreme Court abolished attempted felony murder, the court reversed the convictions because it could not determine which theory supported the jury's verdict, and remanded for a new trial on the attempted premeditated murder charges.
The court reversed the attempted first-degree murder convictions and remanded for a new trial on charges of attempted first-degree premeditated murder. Because it is impossible to determine which legal theory the jury relied upon and the facts could support conviction under either theory, the convictions cannot stand.
[1] A conviction for attempted felony murder is no longer recognized in Florida.
[2] When a jury is instructed on both attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder, and the former theory is subsequently invalidated, a conviction must be rever…
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“Because it is impossible to determine which theory the jury used to convict defendant and because the facts could support a guilty verdict on either theory, we reverse.”
The court's primary rationale for reversing the attempted first-degree murder convictions—the fundamental problem of ambiguous jury verdicts when one of two alternative theories is no longer legally viable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Rodney Williamson was charged with and convicted of attempted first-degree murder on three counts (Counts II-IV). The jury received instruct…
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 Attempted Premeditated Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
We affirm defendant’s convictions on all charges except attempted first degree murder. The jury was instructed on both attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder. Subsequent to the verdict, our supreme court held that the crime of attempted felony murder will no longer be recognized in Florida. See State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1995). Because it is impossible to determine which theory the jury used to convict defendant and because the facts could support a guilty verdict on either theory, we reverse. See Meeks v. State, 667 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). See also Tape v. State, 661 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Harris v. State, 658 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Lamb v. State, 668. So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
The state contends that this court has authority to reduce each of the three attempted first degree murder convictions to the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder, citing to Alfonso v. State, 661 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review granted, 668 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1996). In Alfonso, the trial court was ordered to discharge the defendant as to his conviction of attempted felony murder. The third district rejected the state’s contention that either the trial court or the appellate court had the authority to reduce a conviction for a nonexistent crime to a lesser included offense. However, the third district certified the question. Id. See also Lee v. State, 664 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
In Thompson v. State, 667 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the third district distinguished Alfonso in that charges of attempted premeditated murder were not viable. In Thompson, however, as in the subsequent Meeks case and as in this case, the defendant was charged in the alternative with both attempted premeditated and attempted felony murder. The Thompson court saw “no impediment to reversing and remanding for a new trial on the charge of attempted premeditated murder where the facts of the case could support a guilty verdict on that charge.” Id. at 471.
Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s convictions for attempted first-degree murder (Counts II-IV) and remand for a new trial only on charges of attempted first degree premeditated murder. KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spencer v. State, 693 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e jury relied in convicting appellant of attempted first-degree murder. Accordingly, the fact that the jury was instructed on attempted first-degree felony murder cannot be considered harmless error. Campbell, 671 So. 2d at 877; Williamson v. State, 671 So. 2d 281, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Tape, 661 So. 2d at 1289; Harris v. State, 658 So. 2d 1226, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Although the above cases establish that appellant’s conviction for attempted first-degree murder must be vacated, appellant may be retri…
-
Bowers v. State, 676 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…appellant’s conviction to attempted second degree murder with a deadly weapon and sentenced appellant accordingly. The crime of attempted felony murder is no longer recognized in this state. State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d at 554. In Williamson v. State, 671 So. 2d 281, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court held that a new trial must be granted when the jury is instructed on both attempted felony murder and attempted premeditated murder “[bjecause it is impossible to determine which theory the jury used to convict d…
-
Kaplan v. State, 681 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…n count one. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty as charged. This is not the same thing as a special verdict. In fact the court in Bowers, in reversing and remanding for a new trial on the premediation theory, quoted from Williamson v. State, 671 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). “It is impossible to determine which theory the jury used to convict defendant and because the facts could support a guilty verdict on either theory.” (emphasis supplied) 676 So. 2d at 1061. In this case, the jury convicted Kap…
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
- State v. Collin Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995)
- Thompson v. State, 667 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Harris v. State, 658 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Alfonso v. State, 661 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Carlton Bernard Tape v. State, 661 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Meeks v. State, 667 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Alphonso LEE v. State, 664 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)