ALBERT HENLY, 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.
Albert Henly was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm following a shooting incident. The court affirmed his conviction but reversed his enhanced sentence because the jury failed to find the requisite condition—that his firearm discharge caused great bodily harm—necessary to impose the mandatory 25-year minimum sentence under Florida law.
Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, the jury must make the finding that discharge of a firearm caused great bodily harm before an enhanced sentence can be imposed. The jury's conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm and shooting within an occupied structure does not constitute a sufficient jury finding that great bodily harm resulted, since aggravated battery can be proved by either great bodily harm or use of a deadly weapon.
[1] A jury's finding of aggravated battery with a firearm does not necessarily include a finding of great bodily harm, as aggravated battery can be proven by showing the use…
[2] Under Apprendi, facts used to enhance a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
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“Any person who is convicted of [aggravated battery with a firearm among other felonies] ... and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a "firearm" or "destructive device" ... and, as a result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, the convicted person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for enhanced sentencing and the conditions precedent that must be found before imposition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenly went on a shooting rampage in a bar and was himself shot. He was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and shooting within an occupied …
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 Aggravated Battery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Henly went on a shooting rampage in a bar and, along with others, was himself shot. His only issue which we find to have merit is that his sentence on the charge of aggravated battery with a firearm was im-permissibly enhanced since the jury failed to find the requisite conditions precedent for such sentence.
Henl/s sentence was enhanced under the provisions of section 775.087(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes:
Any person who is convicted of [aggravated battery with a firearm among other felonies] ... and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” ... and, as a result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, the convicted person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison.
Clearly, this provision requires that a finding be made that defendant, during the commission of the aggravated battery, discharged a firearm causing at least great bodily harm to someone before the enhanced sentence is applicable. The issue is whether it is the jury which must make this finding or whether the sentencing judge, from a review of the evidence, may do so. We find under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), as the State seems to concede, that this obligation falls to the jury.
The State suggests that the jury in fact made this determination by finding defendant guilty of aggravated battery with a firearm. We agree that Henly’s conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm is a sufficient jury determination that Henly possessed a firearm and that his conviction for shooting within an occupied structure is a sufficient jury finding that he fired that firearm. But neither conviction is a sufficient jury finding that the use of the firearm caused great bodily harm to any person. Even the information charges only bodily harm and not “great” bodily harm. Further, aggravated battery can be proved either by showing great bodily harm or use of a deadly weapon. Hence, great bodily harm was neither alleged nor necessarily found by the jury. Both Cameron v. State, 804 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and Tucker v. State, 726 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1999), are distinguishable.
We stated in McCloud v. State, 803 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(enbanc), that Apprendi does not apply unless the statutory maximum sentence is being exceeded. Although some take the position that a statutory maximum which cannot be applied because of guideline sentencing statutes’ restrictions is like a mirage in that it has no substance, still we are bound by McCloud. But it does not matter in this case because the statutory maximum for a second degree felony was almost doubled.
We affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence on the aggravated battery with a firearm charge and remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hank Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…abducted or imprisoned or restrained [the victim] against her will” and that Appellant had no authority to do so. At no point, did the jury have to consider whether the couple’s young child witnessed the confining or restraining. Cf. Henly v. State, 812 So. 2d 549, 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(finding merit in defendant’s Apprendi challenge where sentence was enhanced for discharging a firearm and causing great bodily harm where there was no inherent finding by the jury in convicting defendant of aggravated batter…
-
Tyra Amos v. State, 833 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…he purpose of sentencing, such admitted facts). The remaining question, then, is whether the fact that the discharge caused great bodily harm was submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. This issue was addressed in Henly v. State, 812 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Henly was charged as the result of a shooting rampage in a bar in which he shot several people, including himself. Henly, 812 So. 2d at 550. Henly’s sentence was enhanced, just as Amos’s was, under section 775.087(2)(a)3. Id. Ci…
-
Demo v. State, 833 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…a. 5th DCA 1995). Further, Demo’s Apprendi challenge to his sentence was also legally insufficient on its face because his sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense. See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla.2002); Henly v. State, 812 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Motion for Rehearing DENIED. PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur. . Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).…
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Tucker v. State, 726 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1999)
- McCLOUD v. State, 803 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Cameron v. State, 804 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)