BRANDON X. STARLING, 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.
The court held that a conviction for robbery with a weapon cannot stand when the jury specifically found the defendant did not possess the firearm used in the offense.
Appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm, but the jury also found he did not actually possess a firearm. The trial court reduced the convicti…
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 Robbery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
Branden Starling appeals his conviction for robbery with a weapon on the basis of a'legally inconsistent guilty verdict. We agree and conclude that his conviction must be reduced to simple robbery.
There is little question that the jury’s verdict in this case was inconsistent on its face. The jury found Appellant guilty of robbery with a firearm, but made a separate finding that Appellant did not “actually possess a firearm” during the commission of the offense. Recognizing the verdict’s inconsistency, the trial court reduced Appellant’s conviction to the lesser included offense of robbery with a weapon. This inclination to reduce the offense was correct. The problem is, however, that the only weapon referenced in the record as being involved in the crime was the firearm allegedly wielded by Appellant, which the jury affirmatively concluded Appellant did not possess. We cannot reconcile Appellant’s reduced conviction for robbery with a weapon with the jury’s specific finding that he did not possess the only weapon 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 *869the 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 235 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2018)…15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Davis v. State, 197 So. 3d 615, 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). We accepted jurisdiction because the Fifth District’s decisions expressly and directly conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Starling v. State, 152 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Deleon v. State, 66 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), where, on similar facts, the district courts ordered the trial courts to reduce the defendants’ convictions to simple robbe…
-
State v. Jalonie McGHEE, 174 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…at Appellant did not actually possess the firearm during the aggravated assault, which negates the critical element that elevates simple assault to aggravated assault. This is a true inconsistent verdict. ...” Id. at 894. See also Starling v. State, 152 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Similar to Gerald, the issue in this case is whether the jury’s special finding regarding the presence of a firearm negated the element of aggravated assault requiring a deadly weapon. See § 784.021(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (de…
-
Davis v. State, 197 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…v. State, 372 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla.1979); Stephens v. State, 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 petitio…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gerald v. State, 132 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Nettles v. State, 112 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)