FRANCES BROWN, 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 the trial court erred in utilizing the deadly weapon enhancement statute because the use of a weapon was an essential element of the offense.
Frances Brown was convicted of aggravated battery. The trial court enhanced her sentence as a habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender,…
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 Essential Element Of Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Frances Brown was sentenced to concurrent sentences as a habitual felony offender and as a prison releasee reoffender following her conviction for aggravated battery. Because her conviction was erroneously enhanced, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Ms. Brown contends that the trial court erred in utilizing the deadly weapon enhancement in section 775.087(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), because the use of a weapon was an essential element of the offense. The trial court utilized the deadly weapon enhancement to increase the crime from a second to a first-degree felony. Section 775.087(l)(b) precludes reclassification if the crime charged requires the use of a weapon as one of its elements. See Dozier v. State, 677 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
The information charged that Ms. Brown caused great bodily harm, perma nent disability or permanent disfigurement to the victim, and in so doing used a deadly weapon, to-wit: a glass bottle. The verdict form stated that the defendant was guilty of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm or permanent disability or permanent disfigurement with a deadly weapon as charged. Because the evidence supports a finding that Ms. Brown used a deadly weapon, we cannot rule out the possibility that the jury utilized that alternative. Accordingly, the court erred in applying the enhancement statute. See also Bogdanon v. State, 763 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Legg v. State, 742 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 806 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…th a weapon. Because the use of a weapon was an essential element of the offense alleged in count one, the trial court erred in reclassifying the degree and offense level of that charge on the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. See Brown v. State, 787 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should score the aggravated battery as a second-degree felony with an offense level of seven. Brown further argues that the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence for the offense of…
-
S.G. v. State, 250 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…rily be a deadly weapon by itself, the context in which the item is used can transform it into one. Cloninger v. State , 846 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (affirming determination that unbroken beer bottle could be deadly weapon); Brown v. State , 787 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that evidence supported the finding that a glass bottle could be used as a deadly weapon); see also State v. Shilling , 77 Wash.App. 166, 889 P. 2d 948, 950 (1995) (Beer "glass is not a per se deadly weapon; thus, the inh…
Authorities Cited
- Dozier v. State, 677 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Bogdanon v. State, 763 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Legg v. State, 742 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)