HARRY LEE FLOWERS, 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 affirmed the appellant's convictions for burglary and robbery with a firearm, holding that the victim's testimony that the appellant pointed a gun at him provided sufficient evidence of the firearm element despite no weapon being recovered.
Sufficient evidence of firearm possession during burglary and robbery exists when the victim testifies with certainty that the defendant pointed a gun at him, even without recovery of the weapon or evidence of gunfire.
[1] Victim testimony that defendant pointed a gun at victim and ordered him to the floor constitutes sufficient evidence of firearm element in burglary and robbery conviction…
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 intelligence“the victim testified that he was certain that the appellant and the appellant's accomplice both had guns. The victim, moreover, testified that the appellant walked within five feet of him, pointed the gun in his direction, and ordered him on the floor.”
Evidence supporting sufficiency of firearm element
The appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and robbery. The victim testified that the appellant and his accomplice both had guns, that the …
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 Commission of a Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
The appellant asserts that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that his crimes, burglary of a dwelling and robbery, were committed with a firearm. Sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence, however, was presented from which a jury could reasonably conclude that appellant possessed a firearm during the commission of these offenses. Crump v. State, 629 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); T.T. v. State, 459 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although no weapons were recovered, the victim testified that he was certain that the appellant and the appellant’s accomplice both had guns. The victim, moreover, testified that the appellant walked within five feet of him, pointed the gun in his direction, and ordered him on the floor. Even without the introduction of the weapon into evidence, or of any evidence of gunfire, there was sufficient evidence presented to sustain appellant’s convictions. See Butler v. State, 602 So. 2d 1303, 1305-6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) for discussion of when evidence of firearm, deadly weapon, or weapon is legally sufficient. See also Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“with both words and actions [the defendant] implied that the gun was loaded and operable”), affirmed, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1997).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGEE v. State, 903 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rm was recovered, and, consequently, none was introduced as evidence at trial, sufficient testimony was presented from which the jury could reasonably conclude that McGee possessed a firearm during the commission of these offenses. Flowers v. State, 738 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Butler v. State, 602 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. SAWAYA, C.J. and PLEUS, J., concur.…
-
Bahram Azin v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Campbell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Lee County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…act, the law is clear in Florida that “a defendant’s use of a firearm during a crime can be established even if the gun is not recovered and introduced into evidence.” Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 1997); Flowers v. State, 738 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (finding sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant possessed a firearm during a robbery, even absent introduction of the weapon into evidence). Moreover, Petitioner raises this claim as one of ineffective ass…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1997)
- Daniels v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Butler v. State, 602 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of T.T. v. State, 459 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Teel v. David J. Samara, M.D., 629 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)