MARKIE ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the three-year mandatory minimum term imposed under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, on the defendant’s conviction for robbery with a firearm, but in all other respects we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences. On this record, it is possible the jury found the defendant guilty of robbery with a firearm as a principal, and because the verdict form does not contain a specific finding that the defendant actually possessed the firearm, the three-year mandatory minimum cannot be applied. State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1984). Consequently we reverse with instructions to strike the mandatory minimum term from the defendant’s sentence for robbery with a fire arm. The defendant need not be present when this correction is made.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 800 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…arges arose, the fact that the verdict forms state that the jury found him guilty of the offenses at issue “with the use of a firearm” does not necessarily indicate that it found that he actually possessed the firearm. As noted in Robinson v. State, 698 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), under these circumstances, “it is possible the jury found the defendant guilty of [the offense] with a firearm as a principal.” The order denying the motion is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED [*703] to the trial court with…
-
Knight v. State, 70 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ith two participants, the jury must specifically find that a person had actual possession of the firearm to qualify for sentencing under section 775.087. Knight v. State, 800 So. 2d 702, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (Knight II) (citing Robinson v. State, 698 So. 2d 908, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which stated that “because the verdict form does not contain a specific finding that the defendant actually possessed the firearm, the three-year mandatory minimum cannot be applied”). Because the jury did not specifically…
-
Knight v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…of a conveyance, and armed kidnaping are illegal because the jury failed to make a specific finding that he personally possessed a firearm during the commission of the crimes. See, e.g., Tucker v. State, 726 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1999); Robinson v. State, 698 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). If Knight’s assertion is true, then his sentences are in excess of the statutory limitations and are illegal. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). The trial court should have considered this claim as an illegal sente…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1984)