KENNETH PITTS, 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 three-year minimum mandatory sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)(1) cannot be imposed because the jury did not make a specific finding that the defendant actually possessed a firearm, which is required for the enhancement.
Kenneth Pitts was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed the imposition of a three-year minimum mandatory sentence und…
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 Possession (Actual And Constructive) cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Kenneth Pitts appeals the three-year minimum mandatory sentence imposed under section 775.087(2)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2000), following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Pitts claims that the trial court could not impose the minimum mandatory because he had not been charged with possession of a firearm by a felon under section 775.087(2)(a), but rather, he was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under section 790.23, Florida Statutes (2000). He argues that the two statutes either penalize different crimes and he could only be sentenced for the charged offense, or they penalize the same offense and the rule of lenity requires the minimum mandatory not be imposed.
In Bundrage v. State, 814 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), this court rejected the same arguments and concluded that section 775.087(2)(a)(l) is a sentencing enhancement statute and does not create a new offense. Bundrage noted that a defendant does not have to be charged under section 775.087(2)(a)(l) in order for the enhancement to apply. Id. at 1135 n. 1.
However, the jury did not make a finding that Pitts actually possessed, as opposed to constructively possessed, a firearm. Such a finding is necessary under section 775.087(2)(a)(l) for application of the enhancement. See Bundrage, 814 So. 2d at 1135. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing without application of the three-year minimum mandatory under section 775.087(2)(a)(l).
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 11 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…h great bodily harm and the use of a deadly weapon. The information contained these necessary allegations. There was no requirement, as Howard asserts, for the information to contain a citation to the weapons enhancement statute. See Pitts v. State, 832 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The verdict form also shows that the jury could have chosen the lesser included offenses of aggravated battery due to great bodily harm, aggravated battery due to the use of a deadly weapon, or simple battery. In light of these…
-
Fredrick J. Allen v. State, 145 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…e, 726 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1999); Leeman v. State, 357 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1978); Williams v. State, 997 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Daniel v. State, 935 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Pitts v. State, 832 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Mosely v. State, 688 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Desmond v. State, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Budd v. State, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Foss v. State, 834 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMillan v. State, 832 S…
-
Horwoth v. State, 202 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Doby v. State, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Vonador v. State, 915 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Pitts v. State, 832 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Sanchez v. State, 979 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Mills v. State, 840 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla, 5th DCA 2002). NORTHCUTT, LaROSE…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bundrage v. State, 814 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)