CLYDE ALFONSO WASHINGTON, 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 10/20/Life statute's minimum mandatory sentence applies only when a firearm is carried on the person, not merely possessed in one's home.
The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine and a firearm by a convicted felon. The firearm was found in his bedroom closet, not on his perso…
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 Actual Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Clyde Alfonso Washington was tried before the bench for possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court found him guilty of both crimes and, further, that he actually possessed the firearm. Based on this finding, the trial court imposed a minimum mandatory sentence of three years pursu ant to the 10/20/Life statute, section 775.087(2)(a)l, Florida Statutes (2002). See Bundrage v. State, 814 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Although Mr. Washington’s possession of the firearm may be termed “actual,” it was not found on his person. Rather, it was found in his bedroom closet during the execution of a search warrant. Mr. Washington, although admitting later that he had put the firearm there several weeks earlier, was standing outside his home when the police officers arrived with the search warrant, and he remained there during the ensuing search. We agree with our sister court in Johnson v. State, 855 So. 2d 218, 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), that the proper construction of the 10/20/Life statute requires that the firearm be carried on the person before the minimum mandatory term is applicable. The State has properly conceded this error in Mr. Washington’s sentencing.
We affirm the convictions and overall sentence, reverse the minimum mandatory portion of the sentence, and remand for the trial court to strike the minimum mandatory designation. Mr. Washington need not be present when the trial court corrects the sentencing documents. See Irons v. State, 851 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…5th DCA 2004); B.L.J. v. State, 880 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Taylor v. State, 880 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Hansell v. State, 879 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McGill v. State, 878 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 876 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McGough v. State, 876 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Turner v. State, 875 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Demps v. State, 874 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Johnson v. State,…
-
Cleveland B. Williams v. State, 997 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ate, 814 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). But in order for the enhancement to apply, the State must prove actual possession. Id. In this context, “actual possession” means that the firearm must be carried on the person. See Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Johnson v. State, 855 So. 2d 218, 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Although the jury made a specific finding that Mr. Williams was in actual possession of the firearm, the State did not present any evidence demonstrating th…
-
Artavis Dawkins v. State, 923 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…for possession of a firearm as a result. See § 775.087(2)(a)(l)(r), Fla. Stat. (2004). However, that mandatory term may not be imposed unless the defendant was in actual possession of the firearm at the time of the offense. See Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bundrage v. State, 814 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because neither the factual basis presented by the State nor the criminal report affidavit, upon which the State relied, established that Dawkins actually possessed t…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Jama Jamar Johnson v. State, 855 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- J.D. Irons v. State, 851 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)