ANTHONY SMITH, 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 jury instruction on burglary was fundamental error because it did not account for the surreptitious nature required by Delgado, and reversed the armed burglary conviction.
Anthony Smith was convicted of armed burglary and armed robbery. The jury was instructed that burglary could be committed by 'remaining in' a structur…
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 Armed Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Anthony Smith appeals his convictions for armed burglary and armed robbery, both of which occurred on February 17, 2001. We affirm his conviction for armed robbery without discussion. However, we reverse his conviction for armed burglary and remand for a new trial. On remand, the trial court is also directed to consider whether the outcome of the armed burglary charge necessitates resentencing on the armed robbery charge and, if so, to resen-tence Smith accordingly.
Smith argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that burglary could be committed by “remaining in” a structure, contrary to the rule announced in Delgado v. State, 776 So. 2d 238 (Fla.2000), in which the supreme court held that “the ‘remaining in’ language applies only in situations where the remaining in was done surreptitiously.” 776 So. 2d at 240. We agree. There was no evidence presented in Smith’s trial that would support a “surreptitious remaining.”
In concluding that Delgado applies in Smith’s case, we align ourselves with the views expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), clarified on reh’g, (Dec. 24, 2003), and likewise certify the following question as one of great public importance:
HAS SECTION ONE OF CHAPTER 2001-58, LAWS OF FLORIDA, LEGISLATIVELY OVERRULED DELGADO V. STATE, 776 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 2000), AS TO CASES NOT FINAL AT THE TIME OF SUCH DECISION IN WHICH THE OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 2000, THEREBY PERMITTING A TRIAL COURT TO INSTRUCT A JURY THAT IT MAY FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BURGLARY, DESPITE EVIDENCE SHOWING A LEGAL ENTRY INTO THE PREMISES AND THAT AN OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED THEREIN WHILE THE DEFENDANT REMAINED WITHIN NON-SURREPTITIOUSLY?
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, question certified, and remanded with directions.
WALLACE, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baltimore v. State, 873 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…presented at trial to support a “surreptitious remaining in” the dwelling by Baltimore. His conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. In concluding that Delgado applies to Baltimore’s case, we follow our holding in Smith v. State, 867 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), in which we aligned this court with the views of the First District Court of Appeal in Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434, 442-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (opinion on rehearing). Reversed and remanded for new trial. FULMER, J., and D…
Authorities Cited
- Delgado v. State, 776 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 2000)
- Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)