JONATHAN FLESNER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Jonathan Flesner was convicted of robbery with a weapon after being charged with robbery with a deadly weapon, using a BB gun without an active CO2 cartridge. The court affirmed his conviction but remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment and declined to review the State's cross-appeal on jury instruction standards for BB guns.
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for correction of the scrivener's error in the judgment. The court declined to review the State's cross-appeal because the jury acquitted Flesner of the deadly weapon charge, making any error in instructing the jury on that charge moot due to double jeopardy concerns.
[1] A judgment must accurately reflect the offense for which a defendant was convicted.
[2] A scrivener's error in a judgment can be corrected on remand.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The judgment incorrectly identifies the offense as robbery with a deadly weapon rather than the offense for which he was actually convicted.”
Establishes the scrivener's error requiring correction on remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlesner was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon. During the robbery, he used a BB gun that he claimed did not have an active CO2 cartridge. The …
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 Robbery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Jonathan Flesner appeals his judgment and sentence for robbery with a weapon. We affirm. On the issues raised by Mr. Flesner, we comment only on an error in the judgment. The State charged Mr. Flesner with robbery with a deadly weapon. During this robbery, Mr. Flesner used a BB gun, which he maintained did not have an active C02 cartridge. The jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of robbery with a weapon. The judgment incorrectly identifies the offense as robbery with a deadly weapon rather than the offense for which he was actually convicted. On remand, this scrivener’s error should be corrected.
The State has filed a cross-appeal in this case pursuant to section 924.07(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(J). In this cross-appeal, the State argues that it was entitled to receive a special instruction explaining the status of BB guns under the holding in Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA), approved, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1997). Although this might be an appropriate subject for consideration by The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, we decline to rule on this issue in this case.
Section 924.07(l)(d), on its face, might seem to give the State the right to receive review of this issue in this case. The problem, however, is that the proposed jury instruction addressed the charge of robbery with a deadly weapon. The jury found Mr. Flesner not guilty on this charge. Even if the trial court erred when instructing the jury on this charge, double jeopardy would prevent a second trial on remand. This is not an issue that became moot while the case was pending on appeal, but rather an issue that was moot from the start. Thus, the State is attempting to ask this court for an advisory ruling on an issue that is not a controversy in this case. We conclude that the right of cross-appeal created by section 924.07(l)(d) does not expand this court’s scope of review to permit it to issue advisory holdings on such issues. Accordingly, we decline to review the issue on cross-appeal.
Affirmed, but remanded for correction of scrivener’s error. SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 32 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…kenly reflects a conviction for robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon instead of robbery with a weapon. See § 812.13(2)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2006). As the State concedes, remand is necessary to correct this scrivener’s error. See Flesner v. State, 890 So. 2d 331, 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Affirmed, but remanded for correction of scrivener’s error. KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1997)
- Daniels v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)