JAMES FRANKLIN LESTER, JR., 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 court held that an unloaded BB gun can be a deadly weapon, but a sentencing enhancement multiplier for assaulting a law enforcement officer cannot be applied retroactively to offenses committed before the rule's effective date.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer using an unloaded BB gun. The trial court applied a sentencing enhancement …
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 Retroactive Application Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Of the two issues presented for our review, we find merit only in that regarding sentencing.
Appellant first argues that the state failed to prove he was guilty of aggravated assault because the unloaded BB gun he used to threaten the officers did not constitute a deadly weapon. We disagree. The Florida Supreme Court has recently held in Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1997), that an unloaded BB gun can in fact be a deadly weapon and that the issue is one to be determined by the trier of fact. We therefore affirm appellant’s conviction.
We agree, however, with appellant’s argument that the court erred in applying the 1.5 “law enforcement officer” enhancement multiplier to his total sentence points since the offense was committed before the effective date of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(22) authorizing the multiplier to be used when the offense is aggravated assault on a police officer. Rule 3.703(d)(22) is applicable only to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995. Appellant’s offense was committed on May 23, 1995.
We therefore reverse appellant’s sentence and remand so that appellant can be sentenced in accordance with a properly calculated scoresheet. If, on remand, the trial court determines that an upward departure sentence is warranted, such a sentence may be imposed if proper written reasons are given. See Madrigal v. State, 683 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 888 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…g Guidelines, 660 So. 2d 1374 (Fla.1995), the statutory authority for imposing the multiplier on the appellant’s sentence was already established at the time the appellant committed his primary offense on June 1, 1995. To the extent Lester v. State, 702 So. 2d 598, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and Madrigal v. State, 683 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), hold to the opposite, we certify conflict. We also note that the amendments made by chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, merely added offenses to the Law Enforcem…
Authorities Cited
- Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1997)
- Aleño Santana Madrigal v. State, 683 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)