TEVIN AKEEM NETTLES, 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.
Tevin Nettles appealed his convictions for carjacking with a firearm and robbery with a firearm, arguing the jury's verdict was legally inconsistent. The court agreed, finding that the jury's explicit finding that Nettles did not possess a firearm negated an essential element of the firearm-enhanced offenses, requiring reversal and resentencing for the lesser non-firearm versions of those crimes.
A legally inconsistent verdict cannot stand when a not-guilty finding on one count negates an essential element required for conviction on another count. The jury's finding that Nettles did not possess a firearm negated the possession element necessary for conviction of carjacking with a firearm and robbery with a firearm, requiring reversal of those convictions.
[1] A jury's verdict is legally inconsistent when a not-guilty finding on one count negates an element necessary for conviction on another count.
[2] A jury's finding that a defendant did not possess a firearm negates the firearm possession element required for convictions of carjacking with a firearm and robbery with…
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“A verdict which is legally inconsistent, however, cannot stand.”
Establishes the core legal principle that distinguishes legally inconsistent verdicts (which are impermissible) from factually inconsistent verdicts (which are permissible).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNettles was charged with carjacking with a firearm or deadly weapon, robbery armed with a firearm, and armed kidnapping with a weapon. The jury found …
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.
Tevin Akeem Nettles appeals his convictions and sentences for carjacking with a firearm and robbery with a firearm arguing the jury’s verdict was legally inconsistent. We agree and reverse and remand for resentencing.
By information Nettles was charged with carjacking with a firearm or a deadly weapon, robbery armed with a firearm, and armed kidnapping with a weapon. At trial, the jury was not instructed on the principals theory, and the verdict used did not list any lesser included offenses. In addition to asking the jury to find Nettles guilty or not guilty as to each charged offense, the jury was asked to find whether or not Nettles possessed a firearm during the carjacking and during the robbery. The jury found Nettles guilty as charged with respect to each of the three offenses, but found that he did not possess a firearm with respect to the charges of carjacking with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. Nettles thereafter moved to be adjudicated guilty of carjacking and robbery, but the trial court denied that motion. Nettles was then adjudicated guilty of carjacking *783with a firearm and robbery with a firearm, first degree felonies punishable by life.
A verdict which is factually inconsistent is permissible in Florida as it results from a jury’s inherent authority to acquit. Thus, for example, a jury’s verdict finding a defendant guilty of aggravated fleeing and eluding and attempted assault charges is permissible even though such a result is factually inconsistent with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity on other charges arising from the same incident. State v. Cappalo, 932 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
A verdict which is legally inconsistent, however, cannot stand. See Shavers v. State, 86 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Such a verdict occurs when a “not-guilty finding on one count negates an element on another count that is necessary for conviction.” Id. at 1221. Here, the jury’s finding that Nettles did not possess a firearm negated the possession element necessary for conviction of carjacking with a firearm, section 812.133(2)(a), and robbery with a firearm, section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2011).
Accordingly, the trial court erred in adjudicating Nettles guilty of carjacking with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. We reverse the judgment of conviction as to these counts and vacate the sentences therefor. The cause is remanded for entry of a corrected judgment which adjudicates Nettles guilty of carjacking and robbery; the third conviction is unaffected by this decision. Upon preparation of a corrected Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet, Nettles is to be resentenced.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Starling v. State, 152 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…referenced in the record. Circumstances like this one raise a “true” inconsistent verdict which may not be excused under the general rule permitting inconsistent verdicts. See Gerald v. State, 132 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Nettles v. State, 112 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Thus, we remand this case to [*869] the trial court to reduce Appellant’s conviction from robbery with a weapon to simple robbery and for resentencing. REVERSED and REMANDED. WOLF, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Davis v. State, 197 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…, 396 So. 2d 741, 742 (Fla. 5th DOA 1981); Deleon v. State, 66 So. 3d 391, 394-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Furthermore, the verdicts and special findings were inconsistent. See Starling v. State, 152 So. 3d 868, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Nettles v. State, 112 So. 3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Failure to correct Davis’s convictions, which resulted in consecutive life sentences, would constitute a manifest injustice. Accordingly, we grant Davis’s petitions for writ of habeas corpus and remand for entry of correc…
-
Lai v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cappalo, 932 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Heavy Patrell Shavers v. State, 86 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)