HATACHI COKE, 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.
Hatachi Coke challenged his 25-year minimum mandatory sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm, arguing the information did not sufficiently allege great bodily injury. The court affirmed, holding that the information's specific allegation that he shot the victim in the legs, combined with the jury's finding of great bodily injury, satisfied statutory requirements for the enhanced sentence.
The court held that the information satisfied statutory requirements for the enhanced sentence. The information's specific reference to the enhancement statute and its allegation that Coke shot the victim in the legs sufficiently advised Coke of the 'great bodily harm' element and put him on notice of the likelihood of enhanced sentencing.
[1] A 25-year minimum mandatory sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes, requires that the grounds for enhancement be charged in the information and that the…
[2] An information alleging that a defendant discharged a firearm and shot the victim in the legs sufficiently advises the defendant of the "great bodily harm" element for pu…
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“the grounds for enhancement must be charged in the information and the jury must make a factual finding concerning those grounds”
Establishes the two-part test required to impose the 25-year minimum mandatory enhancement sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoke was charged with aggravated battery for shooting Fernie Emmanuel in the legs while in possession of a firearm. The information specifically refer…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Hatachi Coke, seeks review of an order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Coke alleges his 25-year minimum mandatory sentence, imposed pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes, is illegal because the information did not sufficiently allege death or great bodily injury, despite the jury finding of great bodily injury for shooting the victim in the legs. We disagree and affirm.
In pertinent part, the State charged Coke, by information, with aggravated battery, by alleging:
HATACHI O. COKE on or about August 25, 2000, in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, while in possession of a firearm, did actually and intentionally touch or strike FER-NIE EMMANUEL against the will of FERNIE EMMANUEL, and in doing so used a pistol which HATACHI O. COKE discharged at FERNIE EMMANUEL, shooting FERNIE EMMANUEL in the legs, and used a firearm a deadly weapon, contrary to Florida Statutes 784.045(1)(a)2 and 775.087(2). (2 DEG FEL)
(Emphasis added). The jury found Coke guilty as charged and made a specific finding of fact that the victim suffered great bodily injury.
For the trial court to enhance the sentence, pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2000), the “grounds for enhancement must be charged in the information” and the jury must make a factual finding concerning those grounds. Dallas v. State, 898 So. 2d 163, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Jackson v. State, 852 So. 2d 941, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)); see also Davis v. State, 884 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).1 To impose the 25-year minimum mandatory enhancement, the information must allege Coke discharged a firearm and caused great bodily harm, and the jury must have made factual findings as to these grounds.
We conclude these requirements were satisfied in this case. First, the information made specific reference to the enhancement statute. Second, the information alleged the defendant shot the victim in the legs, which we find sufficiently advised the defendant of the “great bodily harm” element. We do not believe due process requires any more specificity. In fact, the allegations are more specific than simply alleging “great bodily harm.” Under this factual scenario, the information sufficiently put the defendant on notice of the likelihood of enhanced sentencing, pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes. And, the jury specifically found that the victim suffered great bodily harm.
Affirmed.
STONE, POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur. . Each of these cases reversed sentences under section 775.087, Florida Statutes, but under distinguishable factual circumstances.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Ivory Lee Robinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…04(2), Florida Statutes.” We agree with the State. The fact the defendant shot the victim, coupled with the statutory citation, was sufficient to give notice of the “great bodily harm” element of section 775.087, Florida Statutes. See Coke v. State, 955 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (concluding that an information, which charged the defendant with aggravated battery by “shooting [the victim] in the legs,” was sufficient to advise the defendant of the “great bodily harm” element, as language was more sp…
-
Duarte v. State, 59 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…te “discharged a firearm”; and the statutory reference to section 810.02(2)(b) within the body of count thirteen, sufficiently alleged that, in the course of committing the burglary, Duarte was or became armed with a dangerous weapon. Coke v. State, 955 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (information charging aggravated battery that made specific reference to enhancement statute and alleged that defendant “shot victim in the legs” sufficiently alleged the element of “great bodily harm” allowing for enhancem…
-
Nelson v. State, 191 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 884 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Sheron Jackson v. State, 852 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Dallas v. State, 898 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)