OMAR FLETCHER, 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.
Omar Fletcher's conviction for burglary of a dwelling was reversed because the jury verdict failed to affirmatively find that the burglary was of a dwelling rather than merely a structure. The appellate court held that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, a specific jury finding is required to enhance burglary to the higher degree crime of burglary of a dwelling.
A burglary conviction cannot be enhanced to burglary of a dwelling without an affirmative jury finding that the structure burglarized was a dwelling. The verdict form must require the jury to make a specific finding that the burglary was of a dwelling, not just a structure, in order to support the enhanced charge.
[1] A jury must make an affirmative finding that a burglary was of a dwelling for the conviction to be elevated to burglary of a dwelling.
[2] A judgment of conviction must conform to the jury's verdict.
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“In order for a third degree felony conviction of burglary to be enhanced to a second degree felony of burglary of a dwelling, the jury must make a specific finding that the burglary was of a dwelling, not just a structure.”
Establishes the core legal requirement that jury must affirmatively find the dwelling element to support the enhanced conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFletcher was charged with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of burglary of a dwe…
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 Apprendi Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Omar Fletcher appeals his conviction for burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. We reverse because the jury failed to affirmatively find that the burglary was of a dwelling.
Count I of the Information charged that Fletcher did unlawfully enter or remain in a dwelling. The trial court subsequently instructed the jury as follows: “Omar Fletcher, the defendant in this case, has been accused of the crime of Burglary of an Unoccupied Dwelling and Grand Theft-Third Degree ($300 to $5,000).” The trial court also instructed the jury that the State must prove, as one of three elements of the crime of burglary, that Fletcher entered or remained in a structure. The jury received the definitions of “structure” and “dwelling.” As part of the instruction for Trespass in a Structure as a lesser included offense of burglary, the trial court instructed the jury that it was necessary for Fletcher to have willfully entered or remained in a dwelling. The jury again received the definition of “structure,” but not that of “dwelling.”
The verdict form read as follows:
As to Count I of the Information
_ Guilty of Burglary
_ Guilty of Trespass as a lesser included offense
_ Not guilty
The jury found Fletcher guilty of burglary.
In order for a third degree felony conviction of burglary to be enhanced to a second degree felony of burglary of a dwelling, the jury must make a specific finding that the burglary was of a dwelling, not just a structure. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). “It is a well established rule of law that the judgment of the trial court must conform to the jury’s verdict.” Williams v. State, 511 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In Williams the defendant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling was reversed because “[t]he verdict did not specify burglary of a dwelling nor state that Williams was guilty ‘as charged’ in the information.” Id. As in Williams, the verdict in this case did not specify that Fletcher was guilty of burglary of a dwelling or state that he was guilty as charged. Thus, Fletcher cannot be convicted of burglary of a dwelling. We therefore reverse Fletcher’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling, and remand for resentencing for burglary of a structure, a third degree felony.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Williams v. State, 511 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)