M.W.
v.
STATE
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 affirms the convictions for attempted aggravated battery and aggravated assault by threat, but reverses and remands the battery conviction for resentencing because the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and the trial court failed to afford the defendant notice and opportunity to be heard on cost assessments as required by Mays v. State.
[1] Criminal procedure—jury instructions—self-defense instruction—harmless error—omission of specific reference to self-defense in battery instruction harmless where defense…
[2] Criminal law—sentencing—statutory maximum—sentence exceeding statutory maximum for battery conviction requires reversal and remand for resentencing.
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“”
Dispositive concession regarding improper sentencing that warranted reversal on battery conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Douglas Perkins was convicted of attempted aggravated battery, aggravated assault by threat, and battery. The trial court withheld adjudication …
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 Attempted Aggravated Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Chief Judge.
Appellant, James Douglas Perkins, appeals his conviction and sentence on three criminal offenses. We affirm the convictions, but reverse and remand for resen-tencing on the battery conviction.
The appellant was found guilty of attempted aggravated battery, aggravated assault by threat, and battery. The trial court withheld adjudication on all counts, and sentenced the appellant on each offense to two years community control to be followed by two years probation. As conditions of community control and probation, appellant was ordered to serve nine months in county jail, perform one hundred and fifty hours of community service, pay $975 in court costs, and have no contact with the victim. The state concedes that this sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the offense of battery. The state also concedes that the appellant was not afforded notice nor the opportunity to be heard on the trial court’s assessment of costs as required by Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988).
The appellant also alleges that the jury instructions given by the trial court were erroneous for failure to properly instruct on self-defense, failure to properly instruct on the elements of battery, and refusal of appellant’s request for an instruction on the defense of voluntary intoxication. However, our reading of the instructions as a whole fails to reveal reversible error. Although the trial judge failed to specifically refer to the defense of self-defense in giving the instruction on battery, that defense was mentioned twice previously, and the jury could not have been misled by this omission. Further, no *561error in the self-defense instruction was preserved for appellate review by appropriate objection and request for a different instruction. As to voluntary intoxication, the trial court properly denied the requested instruction. See, Broxson v. State, 505 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed, the appellant’s sentence on the battery conviction is vacated, and this cause is remanded for resentencing on the offense of battery.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myrticia Quiencilla Gray v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Keschener Destin v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Sparks v. State, 740 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lyles v. State, 742 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Evans v. State, 831 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Hahn v. State, 58 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1952)
- Asbury v. State, 765 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- J.L.D. v. State, 4 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- R.W. v. The Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Broxson v. State, 505 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Seago v. State, 23 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)