JAMAL WODFORD
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.
Appellant challenged his convictions and sentences for five counts of child abuse under Florida Statutes section 827.03(1)(b)2., arguing the jury verdict was legally inconsistent because he was acquitted of shooting into a building and found guilty only of assault on aggravated assault charges. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that the child abuse offenses did not depend on the elements negated by the acquittal on the shooting charge.
The verdict is not legally inconsistent because the child abuse convictions are not dependent upon the jury's finding that the appellant shot into the home or committed aggravated assault with a firearm. A true inconsistent verdict requires that an acquittal on one count negate a necessary element for conviction on another count, which did not occur here.
[1] A verdict is legally inconsistent, requiring reversal, only when an acquittal on one count negates a necessary element of conviction on another count; mere factual or log…
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 intelligenceAppellant was charged with shooting into a building, aggravated assault with a firearm on two adults, and five counts of child abuse. The jury found h…
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 Aggravated Assault With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
June 26. 2024 PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for five counts of child abuse under section 827.03(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes. He argues that the jury’s verdict was legally inconsistent because the jury found him not guilty of shooting into a building and guilty of the lesser included offense of assault on the charge of aggravated assault (of two adults) with a firearm.
We find the verdict is not legally inconsistent because the child abuse offenses are not dependent upon the jury’s finding that Appellant shot into the home or committed aggravated assault with a firearm on either of the adults as alleged by the State. As we stated in Turner v. State, 301 So. 3d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), “a true inconsistent verdict requires more than just factual or logical inconsistency.” Instead, in a “true” inconsistent verdict “an acquittal on one count negates a necessary element for conviction on another count.” Id. at 1019 (quoting Gonzalez v. State, 440 So. 2d 514, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)); see, e.g., Redondo v. State, 403 So. 2d 954, 956 (Fla. 1981) (reversing a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony when the defendant was convicted of only simple battery as the underlying offense); Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 1979) (reversing a defendant’s felony murder conviction “because the jury failed to find her guilty of the underlying felony”).
Appellant also asserts several rulings by the trial court that he claims require reversal. However, the argument on these rulings in Appellant’s briefs fails to demonstrate any abuse of the trial court’s discretion for the admission of any of the evidence listed or for allowing the State to exercise a peremptory strike of a potential juror. See Rhody v. McNeil, 344 So. 3d 530, 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Greenwood v. State, 754 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Our review of the trial transcript revealed no abuse of the court’s discretion on any of the rulings on the face of the record.
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (77 total)
-
State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)…that the legislature is presumed to know existing judicial constructions of the law when enacting a statute. Williams v. Jones, 326 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1975), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803, 97 S.Ct. 34, 50 L.Ed.2d 63 (1976). .Compare Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1979) (sentence and conviction vacated) with King v. State, 390 So. 2d 315 (Fla.1980) (sentence vacated but conviction preserved), cert. denied, —— U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1529, 67 L.Ed.2d 825 (1981).…
-
Amos Lee King v. State, 390 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1980)…*320] sentence for the underlying felony of involuntary sexual battery. We agree. Where the underlying felony was an element of the felony murder, a defendant cannot be sentenced for both the underlying felony and the felony murder. Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1979); State v. Wright, 379 So. 2d 96 (Fla.1979); State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1979). We find that appellant’s sentence for involuntary sexual battery must be vacated. The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in sentencin…
-
Redondo v. State, 403 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1981)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before the Court on petition for certiorari to review the decision in Redondo v. State, 380 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). We find express and direct conflict with Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1979), and therefore have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Petitioner was charged by a two-count information with aggravated battery and the unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in the commission of a felony. The case was…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 77 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Redondo v. State, 403 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1981)
- Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1979)
- Hinson v. Palm Beach Cnty., 440 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Greenwood v. State, 754 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)