BERNARD ALLEN, 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.
Bernard Allen appeals his conviction for carjacking with a firearm, challenging whether the State proved he possessed a firearm during the offense and whether the trial court properly imposed a minimum mandatory sentence after he was removed from the courtroom. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved firearm possession and that the delayed announcement of the minimum mandatory sentence in Allen's absence, with counsel's waiver, did not constitute fundamental error.
The court held that the evidence of Allen's threat to shoot, the firearm found at the arrest scene, and Allen's admission that he pointed the gun at the victims sufficiently proved firearm possession. The jury's guilty verdict on the charged offense necessarily included a finding that Allen used the firearm. The delayed announcement of the minimum mandatory sentence, made in open court albeit after Allen's removal and with counsel's waiver, did not constitute fundamental error.
[1] A threat to shoot, the discovery of a firearm near the arrest scene, and an admission to pointing the firearm at victims is sufficient proof of possession during a carjac…
[2] A jury's guilty verdict on a charge of carjacking with a firearm necessarily includes a finding that the defendant possessed and used a firearm during the commission of t…
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“We believe that his threat to shoot the victim, the finding of a firearm at his arrest scene, and appellant's admission that he pointed the firearm at the victim and his girlfriend is sufficient proof that he physically possessed the firearm during the carjacking.”
Establishes the court's holding on the sufficiency of evidence for firearm possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen carjacked a vehicle in a restaurant parking lot, threatening to shoot the victims if they resisted. During pursuit, Allen made a sharp U-turn an…
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 Carjacking With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Allen carjacked a vehicle from a victim and his girlfriend in the parking lot of a restaurant and in doing so threatened to shoot if they resisted. During pursuit, Allen made a sharp u-turn and flipped the Lincoln Navigator. A firearm was found on the ground by the vehicle. After Miranda warnings, Allen admitted to an officer that he had pointed the gun at the victims.
Allen was convicted of carjacking with a firearm. At sentencing, the court announced a sentence of 20 years in prison but, after defendant was removed from the courtroom, advised defense counsel that he also intended to impose the minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm. Noting that the defendant was not present in the courtroom, the judge asked defense counsel if she wanted the defendant brought back into court to hear the minimum mandatory provision announced. Defense counsel stated that she had no problem with the court proceeding in the absence of defendant.
Appellant claims on appeal that the State never proved that he had possession of the firearm during the commission of the carjacking because neither the victim nor his girlfriend actually saw the weapon. We believe that his threat to shoot the victim, the finding of a firearm at his arrest scene, and appellant’s admission that he pointed the firearm at the victim and his girlfriend is sufficient proof that he physically possessed the firearm during the carjacking.
Appellant also contends that since there was no specific jury finding that appellant actually possessed a firearm during the carjacking, the minimum mandatory sentence can not stand. We disagree. Here, there was only one perpetrator involved in the carjacking. Use of the firearm was made an element of the offense. By finding appellant guilty as charged, the jury necessarily found that a firearm was used and that appellant used it. We acknowledge authority that if there are multiple perpetrators, the jury must determine which of them used a firearm. Such cases are irrelevant in this case.
Finally, Appellant argues that since the court did not announce the minimum mandatory sentence while he was present in the courtroom, it is now too late to impose it. This is not a situation in which the sentence was not announced in open court or a situation in which the oral sentence contradicts the written judgment. Here, the court orally announced the minimum mandatory sentence in open court but did so belatedly-after Allen was taken from the courtroom. Without mentioning his attorney’s waiver of his presence, Allen insists that absent a valid waiver he is entitled to be present during his sentence. He must be urging that only a defendant personally can waive this right to be present. Perhaps so. In any event there was no objection to the sentencing. And we do not find fundamental error.1 Even if we reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing with defendant present, the court must again impose the minimum mandatory sentence. There is no double jeopardy problem and certainly the imposition of a sentence required by law to be entered is not vindictive. If appellant desires to personally hear the imposition of the minimum mandatory sentence, this ruling is without prejudice to his filing a 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ, concur. . Although we held in Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), that resentencing defendant in his absence was fundamental error even if the trial judge could impose the same sentence, Keller preceded the Criminal Appeal Reform Act. In light of such Act, even though courts retain the right to review sentencing errors which are fundamental, the doctrine of fundamental error is not as broad. Certainly the defendant has the constitutional right to be present at sentencing but all constitutional errors are not fundamental. In this case, defendant's absence from this stage of his sentencing, waived by his counsel in any event, neither goes to the foundation of the case or to the merits of the cause of action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…see Frost v. State, 769 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Neither circumstance is present in this ease. Defense counsel’s consent did not serve, under the facts here, to waive Appellant’s right to be present at resen-tencing. Cf. Allen v. State, 799 So. 2d 284, 285-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). And the resentencing in this case was not purely ministerial. See Christian, 5 So. 3d at 787. Upon concluding, based on Appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, that the attempted murders are subject not to life sentences, b…
-
Allen v. State, 853 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the carjacking, and that the mandatory minimum provision was erroneous because Allen had been removed from the courtroom by the time the trial court announced the minimum term. In Allen v. State, 799 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we affirmed the conviction and sentence. The state did not cross appeal. Id. After remand, Allen moved for modification of his sentence, asserting that the trial court might have received an incorrect impression of Allen’s juve…
-
Montrell L. Johnson v. State, 53 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…than Johnson was the shooter. The only reasonable conclusion that can be reached from the jury’s verdict and special findings is that the jury found Johnson was in actual possession of the firearm and he actually discharged same. See Allen v. State, 799 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“Appellant also contends that since there was no specific jury finding that appellant actually possessed a firearm during the carjacking, the mandatory minimum sentence cannot stand. We disagree. Here, there was only one pe…
Authorities Cited
- Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)