GREGORY J. LEE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for acquittal, sustaining the State's objection, using a six-person jury, or making factual findings regarding defendant's status as a habitual violent felony offender and prison release reoffender.
[1] Under existing precedent, the trial court, not the jury, must make factual findings that a defendant committed an offense within three years of release from prison for pu…
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 intelligenceGregory J. Lee was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Broward County. He appealed challenging the trial court's various rulings a…
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 Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant Gregory J. Lee (“Defendant”) timely appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant argues the trial court improperly denied his motion for acquittal and improperly sustained the State’s objection based on speculation. We reject both arguments without discussion. We also reject Defendant’s argument that being convicted by a six-person jury was unconstitutional and deny Defendant’s request to certify a question of great public importance. See Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
Finally, we reject Defendant’s argument that a jury, not the trial court, must make a factual finding that Defendant committed his offense within three years of his release from prison for purposes of classifying him as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender and a Prison Release Reoffender. See generally Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7, 9-10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). We also deny Defendant’s request for a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370 (cert. granted Nov. 20, 2023). However, we
2
acknowledge that Defendant has argued the Court’s decision in Erlinger could be dispositive in the instant case. Affirmed. MAY, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)