GERALD 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.
Appellant's challenge to sentences for carjacking and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon fails because the factual question of whether a pellet gun constitutes a deadly weapon is not properly raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion and was waived by his guilty plea.
A defendant who pleads guilty waives the right to contest whether a weapon is deadly, and such factual disputes are not proper subjects of rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentences.
[1] A defendant who enters a guilty plea waives the right to contest whether a weapon used in the offense constitutes a deadly weapon, and such factual disputes cannot be rai…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An object may be a deadly weapon if it is used or threatened to be used in a way that is likely to produce death or great bodily harm or if by its nature it is something likely to produce death or great bodily harm when used as designed.”
Court explaining the legal standard for determining whether an object constitutes a deadly weapon.
Smith was charged with carjacking with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, with the state alleging he carried a pellet gun. H…
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 Guilty Plea Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). All of his claims revolve around his contention that his sentences for carjacking with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon are illegal because the state charged that he carried a pellet gun which is not a deadly weapon. As the issue is one of fact, it is not the proper subject of a rule 3.800(a) motion, and by pleading to the charge appellant waived his right to contest the deadliness of the weapon.
Whether a pellet gun could be a deadly weapon would have been an issue for the jury to decide if appellant had gone to trial. Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1997); Jones v. State, 869 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Moore v. State, 903 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Santiago v. State, 900 So. 2d 710, 711-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). An object may be a deadly weapon if it is used or threatened to be used in a way that is likely to produce death or great bodily harm or if by its nature it is something likely to produce death or great bodily harm when used as designed. Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43; State v. Walthour, 876 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). By entering his plea, appellant waived his right to have a jury decide this issue and he has not shown that his sentence is illegal.
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Walthour, 876 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Jones v. State, 869 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Santiago v. State, 900 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Moore v. State, 903 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)