AGNES MARIA GIBBS, 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.
Affirmed conviction for carrying a concealed firearm; motion for judgment of acquittal was not preserved because it was general rather than specific, and the concealment question was properly a jury question of fact.
A general motion for judgment of acquittal is not preserved for appeal, and whether a firearm was concealed is a question of fact for the jury.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal must be specific rather than general to be preserved for appellate review.
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 intelligenceAgnes Maria Gibbs was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm. She moved for judgment of acquittal and objected to imposition of a public defender's…
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 Concealed Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for carrying a concealed firearm, finding that the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was not preserved for appeal because the motion was general and not specific. Johnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), dismissed, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986). In addition, even if we would consider it preserved, the question of whether the gun was concealed was a question of fact for the jury to consider under the circumstances. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1981). We also affirm the imposition of the public defender’s fee. While appellant objected in the trial court to the imposition of the fee because of her inability to pay, on appeal her argument is that the fee is speculative, a point which was not raised below and therefore was not preserved. See Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The state concedes that the written order of probation must be corrected to reflect that appellant was sentenced to two years of probation, in accordance with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Avery v. State, 543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA), dismissed, 553 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1989). We therefore remand to the trial court to correct the written sentence.
Affirmed and remanded.
WARNER, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…number of days to be credited before the correction is made. This court has consistently held that an oral pronouncement at sentencing prevails over a written order. See, e.g., Anthony v. State, 705 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Gibbs v. State, 693 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thomas v. State, 595 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Where there is no ambiguity in the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Only where there is an ambiguity…
-
Anthony v. State, 705 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…he written sentence indicates that the sentence as to count IV is to be served consecutively to the sentences previously imposed. The court’s oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing prevail over the written sentencing form. See Gibbs v. State, 693 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thomas v. State, 595 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Elton E. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981)
- Darrel Michael Abbott v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Avery v. State, 543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)