ALBERT LEGETTE, 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.
Albert Legette appeals his convictions for attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm, arguing the dual convictions violate double jeopardy protections. The Florida appellate court affirms, holding that the two offenses each require proof of distinct elements and therefore do not constitute double jeopardy violations.
The court held that the dual convictions do not violate double jeopardy because attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm each require proof of an element that the other does not. The court also held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining to impose a youthful offender sentence.
[1] Dual convictions for attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm do not violate double jeopardy when each offense requires proof of an element t…
[2] Robbery requires the use of force, violence, or fear, while improper exhibition of a firearm does not.
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“these two offenses each require proof of an element that the other does not”
Establishes the Blockburger test standard for determining whether dual convictions constitute double jeopardy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbert Legette was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm. He was 20 years old at the time of the offense.…
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 Improper Exhibition Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Albert Legette appeals his judgment and sentences following his convictions of attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm. Mr. Legette contends that the dual convictions constitute a double jeopardy violation. Despite the state’s concession of error on this issue, we conclude these two offenses each require proof of an element that the other does not. § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).
Robbery requires that force, violence, or fear be used during the course of the offense. § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1993).
By contrast, improper exhibition requires neither force, violence, or fear. § 790.10, Fla. Stat. (1993).
Improper exhibition is established when a weapon is exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, whereas robbery does not require exhibition of the weapon in such a manner. Cf. Kase v. State, 581 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (no double jeopardy violation for convictions of improper exhibition of a weapon and aggravated assault).
Because the elements required to prove improper exhibition of a firearm are not subsumed in the attempted robbery with a firearm, these convictions do not result in a double jeopardy violation.
We also approve the trial court’s imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence for Mr. Legette’s conviction for attempted robbery with a firearm. Although Mr. Legette was 20 years old when he committed this first offense, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining to impose a youthful offender sentence. See § 958.021, Fla. Stat. (1993); Ellis v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pena v. State, 829 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…to return a partial jury pardon would not find anything useful in these instructions. Most of the eases in which the omission of these instructions was found to be harmful error involve second-degree murder convictions. See, e.g., Roberts v. State, 694 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Alejo v. State, 483 So. 2d 117, 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Smith, 773 So. 2d at 1278. In the analysis of second-degree murder convictions, justifiable and excusable homicide can play a significant role because they are important ins…
-
Johnson v. State, 206 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…09); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Campbell v. State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Legette v. State, 694 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Freeman v. State, 684 [*91] So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., concur.…
-
Abrams v. State, 266 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…te v. Craft, 685 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1996); Allen v. State, 684 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1996); State v. Maxwell, 682 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1996); Borges v. State, 415 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1982); State v. Torres, 890 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Legette v. State, 694 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Freeman v. State, 684 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, 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
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Pope v. State, 475 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Kase v. State, 581 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)