ANTHONY STOKES, 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.
Anthony Stokes appealed his convictions for armed burglary of a conveyance and aggravated assault. The court affirmed the armed burglary conviction but reversed the aggravated assault conviction, holding that aggravated assault is not a necessarily included offense of aggravated battery and cannot be charged without proper notice in the information.
The trial court erred in reducing the charge from aggravated battery to aggravated assault because aggravated assault is not a necessarily included offense of aggravated battery and can only be considered an included offense if the information charges the elements of both offenses and the facts necessary to support both. The information here failed to allege that the defendant placed the victim in fear by threatening to do violence coupled with apparent ability to do so, which are required elements of aggravated assault.
[1] A defendant may be convicted of an offense not charged in the accusatory pleading if it is a necessarily included lesser offense or if it is included within the allegatio…
[2] Aggravated assault is not a necessarily lesser included offense of aggravated battery.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is a fundamental right of a person called upon to respond to criminal charges to be notified by the accusatory pleading of all offenses for which he may be convicted in the proceeding.”
Establishes the constitutional right to notice of charges through the accusatory pleading
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStokes was originally charged with aggravated battery for unlawfully and intentionally touching or striking the victim against her will with a carving…
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 Armed Burglary Of A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Defendant appeals his convictions for armed burglary of a conveyance and aggravated assault. We affirm the armed burglary conviction, but reverse the aggravated assault conviction and remand.
With regard to the aggravated assault conviction, the State originally charged the Defendant with aggravated battery. The information provided in pertinent part,
ANTHONY JEROME STOKES ... did unlawfully and intentionally touch or strike [the victim] against her will with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a carving knife, contrary to F.S. 784.045.
After the evidence had been presented, the defense moved to dismiss the aggravated battery charge. The trial court, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish aggravated battery, reduced the charge to aggravated assault over the defense’s objection. The aggravated assault charge was submitted to the jury, which found him guilty.
On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in reducing the aggravated battery charge to aggravated assault, because aggravated assault is not a lesser included offense of aggravated battery and the information failed to allege the elements and facts to support aggravated assault. We agree.
“It is a fundamental right of a person called upon to respond to criminal charges to be notified by the accusatory pleading of all offenses for which he may be convicted in the proceeding.” Payne v. State, 275 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). “Nonetheless, by procedural rule and case construction thereof a defendant under a criminal charge may be convicted of any crime which is ‘necessarily included’ in the offense charged or which is included within the allegations of the accusatory pleading and shown by the proofs.” Id.
“Aggravated assault is not a necessarily lesser included offense of aggravated battery and it can be considered an included offense only, if at all, where the information charges the elements of both and the facts necessary to support both.” Salas v. State, 591 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see Moody v. State, 597 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Here, the information has not alleged the elements or the facts necessary to support aggravated assault, because it failed to allege that the Defendant placed the victim in fear by threatening to do violence, coupled with the apparent ability to do so. See §§ 784.011, 784.021, Fla. Stat. (2000). Accordingly, we reverse the aggravated assault conviction and remand.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Negron v. State, 938 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…rent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.” § 784.011(1), Fla. Stat. An aggravated assault has different elements than an aggravated battery. See Stokes v. State, 773 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In order for aggravated assault to be a lesser included offense of aggravated battery, the information must charge the elements of both and there [*652] must be facts necessary to support both. Wilburn v. State, 840 So. 2d 384 (…
-
Wilburn v. State, 840 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…he instruction for aggravated assault with a firearm was presented to the jury as a lesser included offense of aggravated battery with a firearm. Aggravated assault is not a necessarily lesser included offense of aggravated battery. Stokes v. State, 773 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “ ‘[I]t can be considered an included offense only, if at all, where the information charges the elements of both and the facts necessary to support both.’ ” Id. at 1240 (quoting Salas v. State, 591 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 4th DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Shaude Moody v. State, 597 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Payne v. State, 275 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Hays v. Altamira Constr. Corp., 591 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Lucio John Salas v. State, 591 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)