STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
KELVIN FRANKLIN, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that reversed an aggravated battery conviction on the ground that it could not be a lesser included offense of second-degree murder because it did not carry a lesser penalty. The Supreme Court clarified that a lesser included offense does not need to carry a lesser penalty than the main offense, and remanded for reconsideration.
A lesser included offense does not need to carry a lesser penalty than the main offense to qualify as a lesser included offense. The court clarified that Ray v. State does not require that the lesser included offense be lesser in both degree and penalty.
[1] A lesser included offense does not necessarily require a lesser penalty than the greater offense.
[2] The definition of a lesser included offense is not solely dependent on the penalty it carries.
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“Ray does not require that the lesser included offense be lesser both in degree and in penalty.”
This quote establishes the core holding that a lesser included offense need not carry a lesser penalty than the main offense, clarifying the Ray standard.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKelvin Franklin was convicted of aggravated battery involving the discharge of a firearm and serious bodily injury, along with a charge of second-degr…
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 Enhanced Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Franklin v. State, 877 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal cited this Court’s decision in Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981), for the proposition that “a lesser included offense, by definition, is an offense which carries a lesser penalty.” The Fourth District agreed with the appellant’s argument below that because his conviction and enhanced sentence for aggravated battery involving the discharge of a firearm and serious bodily injury do not carry a lesser penalty than the charged offense of second-degree murder, the former is not a lesser included offense of the latter under Ray. See Franklin, 877 So. 2d at 20. The Fourth District thus reversed the aggravated battery conviction but certified the following question of great public importance to this Court:
WHERE THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT FINDINGS UNDER SEC TION 775.08, FLORIDA STATUTES, THAT RESULT IN THE PENALTY FOR AGGRAVATED BATTERY BEING THE SAME AS FOR ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER, IS AGGRAVATED BATTERY A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER?
Id. at 21 (on motion to certify a question of great public importance). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We stayed the present case pending our disposition of Sanders v. State, 944 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla.2006), in which we addressed the following similar certified question:
IN ORDER FOR AN OFFENSE TO BE A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE, MUST IT ' NECESSARILY RESULT IN A LESSER PENALTY THAN EITHER THE PENALTY FOR THE MAIN OFFENSE OR THE NEXT GREATER OFFENSE ON THE VERDICT FORM?
In answering the question in the negative, we clarified that “Ray does not require that the lesser included offense be lesser both in degree and in penalty.” Sanders, 944 So. 2d at 207. We thus directed the respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not exercise our jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Sanders. Upon consideration of the respondent’s response, we have determined to do just that.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case, quash the decision under review, and remand this matter to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Sanders.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manos v. State, 969 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2007)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Manos v. State, 895 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited as authority Franklin v. State, 877 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), quashed, 955 So. 2d 564 (Fla.2007). At the time the Fifth District Court issued its decision in Manos, Franklin was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). We stayed proceedings i…1 / 2
-
Franklin v. State, 958 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ated battery for a new trial, but certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. The court granted review and answered the question in a manner which requires us to now affirm appellant’s conviction. State v. Franklin, 955 So. 2d 564, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S158 (Fla. Apr. 19, 2007). We now accordingly affirm all issues. STONE, KLEIN and TAYLOR, concur.…
-
Manos v. State, 977 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…pellant’s conviction. At that time, the Florida Supreme Court was reviewing Franklin, and, pending its disposition, stayed proceedings in this case. The court has now remanded the matter for our reconsideration upon application of State v. Franklin, 955 So. 2d 564 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, after our review of Franklin, 955 So. 2d 564, we AFFIRM Manos’ conviction and sentence for manslaughter with a weapon. ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Sanders v. State, 944 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2006)
- Franklin v. State, 877 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)