STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DELEON FRANKLIN TINSLEY, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1996-11-15
No. 96-966
GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
683 So. 2d 1089 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

The state appeals a trial court's decision reducing an attempted second degree murder charge from a first degree felony to a second degree felony. The court reverses, holding that section 775.087(1)'s weapon enhancement applies because use of a weapon is not an essential element of the crime of attempted second degree murder under substantive criminal law, only in the specific information charging this defendant.


Holding

The court holds that section 775.087(1) refers to essential elements as defined in substantive criminal law, not as alleged in the information. Because attempted second degree murder can be perpetrated in multiple ways without a weapon, weapon use is not an essential element of the crime, and the enhancement properly applies.


Headnotes

[1] A felony may be reclassified to a higher degree under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes, even if the use of a weapon is alleged in the charging instrument, provided th…

[2] The "essential element" exception in section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes, refers to elements defined by the substantive criminal law, not allegations contained within an…

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“Whether the attempted second degree murder charge should have been reclassified pursuant to section 775.087(1) depends on whether section 775.087(1) refers to an 'essential element' set forth in an information, or whether it refers to a required and necessary element of the crime as set forth by the particular substantive criminal statute.”

Establishes the central legal question: whether 'essential element' means as alleged in charging documents or as defined in substantive law.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Tinsley pled guilty to three attempted murder charges, including one count of attempted second degree murder with a knife and two counts of attempted …

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.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

The state appeals from the trial court’s order which granted Tinsley’s motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800 by reducing his attempted second degree murder charge from a first degree felony to a second degree felony. The trial court reasoned that it had been improper to enhance the attempted second degree murder offense pursuant to section 775.087(1) to a first degree offense because use of a weapon was an essential element of the offense as charged. We disagree and reverse.

In this ease, Tinsley pled guilty to three attempted first degree murder charges, which included one count of attempted second degree murder with a weapon, and two counts of attempted third degree murder. Based on section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1993), the trial court reclassified the second degree murder offense to a first degree felony.1 The information charged that Tinsley attempted to kill the victims with a knife.

Section 775.087(1) provides: Unless otherwise provided by law, whenever a person is charged with a felony, except a felony in which the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element, and during the commission of such felony the defendant carries, displays, uses, threatens, or attempts to use any weapon or firearm, or during the commission of such felony the defendant commits an aggravated battery, the felony for which the person is charged shall be reclassified- (emphasis supplied)

Whether the attempted second degree murder charge should have been reclassified pursuant to section 775.087(1) depends on whether section 775.087(1) refers to an “essential element” set forth in an information, or whether it refers to a required and necessary element of the crime as set forth by the particular substantive criminal statute. In this case, the element of use of the knife appears solely in the information. Second degree murder can be attempted in a variety of ways other than by use of a knife or weapon. That statute does not require as an essential element that a knife or any other weapon be used.2

The proper reference in section 775.087(1) is to the substantive criminal law which defines the crime in question. In an analogous ease, Strickland v. State, 437 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1983), the Florida Supreme Court held that a first degree attempted murder charge was properly enhanced by section 775.087(1) to a life felony. The defendant had been charged by information with attempting to murder a victim with a shotgun. In affirming the enhancement, the court said: “We find the use of a firearm not to be an essential element of the crime of attempted first degree murder.” 437 So. 2d at 152.

In Miller v. State, 460 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1984), the court reaffirmed this interpretation of section 775.087(1). Miller had been charged with second degree murder by shooting a victim with a handgun. The jury returned a verdict of attempted second degree murder and the trial judge enhanced the crime from a second degree felony to a first degree felony, as in this case. The court upheld that reclassification, although the issue argued in that appeal was whether reclassification was proper when a defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense. However, implicit in the court’s affirmance in Miller, is its holding in Strickland, that the “essential element of the crime” language of section 775.087(1) references the substantive criminal law, and not the allegations of the information or indictment.

REVERSED.

GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Attempted second degree murder is a second degree felony. In this case, the trial judge re classified this charge to a first degree felony pursuant to section 775.087(1).

. Second degree murder is defined as: “The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without an premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.” § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat. (1993).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Stoute v. State, 915 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
    …e first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The statute does not include the use of a firearm as an essential element of the crime. See State v. Tinsley, 683 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1999) provides: (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, whenever a person is charged with a felony, except a felony in which the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element, and…
  • Claps v. State, 971 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
    …to define the elements of a statutory crime, Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and proof of essential elements of crimes, such as those applicable to Claps, is achievable in more than one manner, see, e.g., State v. Tinsley, 683 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that the elements of second-degree murder can be satisfied in a variety of ways other than by use of a weapon). The State’s ability to choose from a menu of options to pursue a criminal conviction in no way conflicts wit…
  • Traylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
    …t looked to the statutory elements of the offense, and not to the information charging the defendant, in making this determination. See Strickland, 437 So. 2d at 152. This approach was recently reemphasized by the fifth district in State v. Tinsley, 683 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996): Whether the attempted second-degree murder charge should have been reclassified pursuant to section 775.087(1) depends on whether section 775.087(1) refers to an “essential element” set forth in an information, or whether…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw