MANUEL AROCHE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Manuel Aroche appealed the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences, claiming his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was incorrectly scored because use of a weapon was an essential element of his convictions and he did not personally use the weapon in all counts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that use of a weapon was not an essential element of the charged offenses and that enhancement under Florida Statute section 775.087 was properly applied.
The court held that use of a weapon is not an essential element of the burglaries charged in Counts 1 and 3, nor of the murder and attempted murder convictions in Counts 4, 5, and 6. Enhancement under section 775.087 was properly applied because the defendant was armed with and used a deadly weapon during commission of these offenses, and his sentences were legally imposed.
[1] Use of a weapon is not an essential element of the offense of occupied burglary of a structure when the information charges assault or battery and the use of a weapon und…
[2] Possession or use of a weapon during the commission of attempted first-degree murder or second-degree murder is not an element of those offenses for sentencing purposes.
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“Use of a weapon, however, is not an essential element of these offenses.”
Establishes the central holding that weapon use was not an essential element of the charged crimes, supporting the validity of the enhancement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel Aroche was convicted of burglary with assault or battery while armed (Counts 1 and 3), attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon (Coun…
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 Use Of A Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, J.
The defendant, Manuel Aroche, appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences. Because we conclude that the defendant’s claims are without merit, we affirm.
The defendant claims that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was incorrectly scored, thus entitling him to re-sentencing. He argues that reclassification of the offenses he was convicted of: burglary with an assault or battery while armed with a weapon (Counts 1 and 3), attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon (Count 4), and second-degree murder with a deadly weapon (Counts 5 and 6), was improper because use of a weapon is an essential element of these offenses, and he was not the person who shot and killed the two co-perpetrators referred to in Counts 5 and 6. Use of a weapon, however, is not an essential element of these offenses. Count 1 of the information, charging the defendant with occupied burglary of a structure, specified that “in the course of committing said burglary, the defendant made an assault or battery upon Raul Toledo, ... and during the commission of said burglary, the defendant carried, displayed, used, threatened or attempted to use a firearm or weapon, to wit: A Knife and/or Bat.” Count 3, which was committed on a separate date, was similarly worded.
Thus, use of a weapon was not an essential element of the burglaries charged in Counts 1 and 3. See Lovett v. State, 773 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (finding that “[because the State charged only an assault and battery under the burglary statute, and charged the use of the weapon under section 775.087, enhancement of the conviction was permitted”). Use of a weapon under section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1992), as to the murder and attempted murder convictions was likewise appropriately scored because possession or use of a weapon during commission of these offenses is not an element of the crime. See Lareau v. State, 573 So. 2d 813, 815 (Fla.1991).
We also find the defendant’s claim, that his sentence was improperly enhanced due to the possession or use of a firearm, is meritless. The defendant was charged, convicted, and his sentences were enhanced pursuant to section 775.087 be cause he was armed with and did use a deadly weapon during commission of these offenses (a bat and/or a knife). Because the defendant’s sentence was not enhanced for the use of a firearm, and the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon during commission of these crimes, we conclude that the sentences imposed for these offenses were legally imposed.
The defendant’s additional arguments are equally without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hurd v. State, 229 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…nife or baseball bat is for use as cutlery or sporting equipment. Yet no one could reasonably dispute that those items are also “commonly understood” as “instrumentfe] for combat against another person” when used as such. See, e.g., Aroche v. State, 993 So. 2d 568, 569-70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that defendant’s sentence was properly enhanced where he was “charged, convicted, and his sentences were enhanced pursuant to section '775.087 because he was armed with and did use a deadly weapon during commissio…
-
Lindo v. State, 7 So. 3d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Anche v. State, 993 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).…
-
Lightfoot v. State, 243 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Hervey Lareau v. State, 573 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1991)
- Lovett v. State, 773 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)