CHARLES LEROY MCCLENITHAN, 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.
Charles Leroy McClenithan appeals his convictions for aggravated assault, armed trespass, shooting into a building, and possession of a firearm during a domestic violence injunction. The court reversed his aggravated assault conviction because it was a lesser-included offense not charged in the information, violating due process, and also found the twenty-year minimum mandatory sentence was improper due to lack of a clear jury finding on firearm discharge.
The court reversed McClenithan's aggravated assault conviction because it was a charge not made in the information, denying him due process; conviction on a lesser-included offense not charged in the information violates due process. The court also held that a clear jury finding that a firearm was discharged during the aggravated assault is required to impose the twenty-year mandatory minimum enhancement under the 10/20/Life statute, and such finding was not made here.
[1] A conviction for a crime not charged in the information violates due process.
[2] Aggravated assault cannot be a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder if the information charging attempted first-degree murder does not allege the elem…
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“A conviction on a charge not made in the information is a denial of due process.”
Establishes the core due process violation: McClenithan was convicted of aggravated assault, which was not charged in the information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcClenithan was charged with four counts of attempted first-degree murder, shooting into a building, burglary with a firearm, and possession of a fire…
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 Burglary With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Charles Leroy McClenithan appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and armed trespass. McClenithan asserts that the twenty-year minimum mandatory term imposed by the trial court was improper and that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to correct sentencing errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Of the five issues raised on appeal, two have merit. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
McClenithan was charged with four counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of shooting into a building, one count of burglary with a firearm, and one count of possession of a firearm while a domestic violence injunction was in effect.
After a jury trial, McClenithan was found not guilty of three counts of attempted first-degree murder and found to be guilty of only one count of the allegedly lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. He was also convicted of shooting into a building, the lesser-included offense of trespass in a structure with a firearm, and possession of a firearm while a domestic violence injunction was in effect.
With regard to the attempted first-degree murder charges, the information alleged in pertinent part:
[O]n or about January 08, 2001, in the County of Hardee and State of Florida, [McClenithan] did unlawfully attempt to commit murder in the first degree in that from a premeditated design to effect the death of a human being and intending to kill a human being, did attempt to kill [each of four victims] and in furtherance of said attempt, did carry and discharge a firearm at or in the direction of [each of the four victims].
On appeal, McClenithan argues that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that the offense of aggravated assault was a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder. He asserts that his conviction for aggravated assault cannot stand because he has been convicted of a charge not made in the information. We agree.
This court directly addressed this issue in Velasquez v. State, 654 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In the present case, as in Velasquez, the information only charged the elements of the crime of attempted first-degree murder. The offense of aggravated assault includes the required element that the victim had a well-founded fear of imminent violence. § 784.021, Fla. Stat. (2001); Gaston v. State, 682 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). This element was not included in the information in the present case because attempted first-degree murder does not require the fear element.1 A conviction on a charge not made in the information is a denial of due process. Velasquez, 654 So. 2d at 1228. McClenithan’s conviction for aggravated assault must be reversed. On remand the State may prosecute McClenithan for the offense of aggravated assault or any lesser offense, but he may not be retried for attempted first-degree murder. See Gaston, 682 So. 2d at 581.
McClenithan also argues that the twenty-year minimum mandatory sentence imposed for the aggravated assault pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2001) (the 10/20/Life statute), was erroneous. He asserts that the jury did not make the specific finding that a firearm was discharged during the course of the aggravated assault as required to impose the mandatory sentence. We agree that there must be a clear jury finding that a firearm was discharged during the aggravated assault in order to justify the twenty-year enhancement under the 10/20/Life statute. See Muldrow v. State, 842 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This clear finding was not made in the present case. Although the sentence has been reversed with the conviction for this offense, we address this issue to caution the trial court against such an error in the future. We affirm without further comment McClenithan’s convictions and sentences for trespass in a structure with a firearm, shooting into a building, and possession of a firearm while a domestic violence injunction was in effect. We note that the trial court properly denied McClenithan’s motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 8.800(b).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . § 782.04(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000); § 777.04(1), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koch v. State, 874 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…scharged” the weapon in committing the aggravated battery, thereby meriting imposition of the 20 year sentence. However, precedent appears to require that the jury must expressly find the defendant “discharged” the firearm. In McClenithan v. State, 855 So. 2d 675 (Fla.2d DCA 2003), the court reversed a conviction for aggravated assault because it was not a lesser included offense of attempted murder. In so doing, it said that in order for a minimum mandatory 20 year sentence to be imposed under section 775.0…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 957 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See §§ 775.087(2)(a)(l)(f), (2)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2005); McClenithan v. State, 855 So. 2d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).…
-
Curry v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County) (M.D. Fla. 2024)…n. § 784.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Coissy v. State, 957 So. 2d 53, 55 (Fla. 4th ---PAGE 14--- DCA 2007). The indictment failed to allege that Curry committed an aggravated assault without the intent to kill. (Doc. 11-2 at 11) See McClenithan v. State, 855 So. 2d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Velasquez v. State, 654 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). "The sufficiency of a state indictment is an issue on federal habeas corpus only if the indictment was so deficient that the convicting court was deprive…
Authorities Cited
- Velasquez v. State, 654 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Muldrow v. State, 842 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Bienvenido G. Gaston v. State, 682 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)