LLOYD HAZEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for a defendant who argued his sentence was illegal. The court found that the armed kidnapping offense was properly reclassified as a life felony due to the jury's explicit finding of firearm use, even though the information did not specifically allege firearm use.
Yes, the offense was properly reclassified as a life felony. The absence of specific firearm use allegations in the information was not fatal because the jury made an explicit finding of firearm use during the commission of the crime.
[1] A felony is reclassified to a life felony when a defendant uses a weapon or firearm during the commission of a first-degree felony, even if the charging document does not…
[2] Referencing a statute that provides for felony reclassification based on weapon use is sufficient to support the reclassification, even if the charging information omits…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under Section 775.087(l)(a), . Florida Statutes, whenever a person is charged with a felony1 and during the commission of the felony the defendant uses a weapon or firearm, the felony is to be reclassified, in the case of a first degree felony to a life felony.”
Establishes the statutory basis for reclassifying a felony based on weapon use.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with armed kidnapping. He argued his sentence was illegal because the State Attorney classified the offense as a life felony…
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 Felony Reclassification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals but we affirm the following order denying post-conviction relief:
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for a hearing on Defendant, Lloyd Hazel’s Motion to Correct Judgment. Defendant argues that his sentence is illegal because the State Attorney erroneously classified the offense of armed kidnapping as a life felony whereas the offense is only a first-degree felony punishable by life. Thus, the Defendant maintains that the points included in his scoresheet are in excess of what should be included.
The Information in this case charges the Defendant with armed kidnapping, citing Sections 787.01 and 775.087, Florida Statutes, although it does not specifically reference the use of a firearm. Under Section 775.087(l)(a), . Florida Statutes, whenever a person is charged with a felony1 and during the commission of the felony the defendant uses a weapon or firearm, the felony is to be reclassified, in the case of a first degree felony to a life felony. The absence of the words “use of a firearm,” is not fatal to the State’s decision to enhance the penalty from a first-degree punishable by life to a life felony. This issue has been addressed in Mesa v. State, 632 So. 2d 1094, 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and it was held there that “[b] because Count III of the information ... references Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1991) as one of the statutes the defendant was charged with violating, we conclude that the judgment of conviction and sentence was properly entered below upon the jury’s conviction on this count, even though the information failed to allege possession of a firearm as an essential element under the above statute.”
Furthermore, the jury verdict form reveals that the jury made an explicit finding that the Defendant used a firearm during the commission of the kidnapping. See, Toro v. State, 691 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
Affirmed.
. There is an exception for "a felony in which the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element....” § 775.087(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). The exception is not applicable here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mesa v. State, 632 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Toro v. State, 691 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)