CHARLES FRANKLIN NORRIS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1971-06-11

No. 70-558

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

249 So. 2d 746 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1971) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the sentence imposed was incompatible with the jury verdict due to ambiguity in the penal statute and the jury's failure to distinguish between knowing violation and intent to harm.

Headnotes

[1] A sentence imposed is not compatible with a jury verdict when the verdict fails to specify the intent required for a conviction under a penal statute.

[2] Ambiguities within a penal statute regarding punishment must be clarified prior to the jury rendering its verdict.

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

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was found guilty of unlawful possession contrary to F.S. section 552.101, but the jury verdict did not specify intent to harm life, limb, or…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Knowing Violation Jury Verdict Interpretation Criminal Sentencing Unlawful Possession

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Knowing Violation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURrAM.

On the basis of our review of the briefs, the record on appeal and oral argument, we are of the opinion that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error with respect to the sufficiency of the information, closing argument of the prosecutor, the instructions to the jury, the necessity of a presentence investigative report, inquiry into mitigating circumstances and the denial of a motion for a new trial. F.S. section 909.06, F.S.A.; Shifrin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 18; Schoenholtz v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 441; Crossley v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 640; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 372; Sinclair v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 453; *747Peters v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 147; Victer v. State, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 544; Melkun v. State, Second District Court of Appeal, 244 So.2d 145, filed February 17, 1971; State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389; State v. Contreras, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 306; State v. Kahler, Fla.1970, 232 So.2d 166; Warren v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 213; F.S. section 918.10(4), F. S.A.; Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 225; Dryden v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 662; Owens v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So.2d 627; Dalton v. State, Fla. 949, 42 So.2d 174; Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 650; Forceier v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 336; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 379; Clinton v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 82; Pearsall v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 58, cert. den., 396 U.S. 912, 90 S.Ct. 228, 24 L.Ed.2d 188; 4 B Fla.Dig., Criminal Law 1038(3); Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 247; Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 793; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 131; Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367; and Johnson v. State, First District Court of Appeal, 242 So.2d 876, opinion filed January 19, 1971.

We are, however, of the opinion that the sentence imposed is not compatible with the jury verdict. The jury verdict does not contain any determination that possession was with intent to harm life, limb or property; the jury having found only that appellant was guilty of unlawful possession contrary to F.S. section 552.101, F.S.A. There is, therefore, no indication as to whether the verdict of the jury was predicated upon a finding that such possession was “with the intent to harm life, limb or property” as distinguished from a possession which was a “knowing violation” as set forth in Section 552.22. Under said section a maximum penalty of ten years is provided for possession with the intent to harm life, limb or property; and a maximum penalty of three years is provided for knowingly violating the provisions of Chapter 552, which violation would include possession without a valid permit. The statute contains an ambiguity to the extent that its application should have been clarified prior to the time the jury rendered its verdict.1 Any doubt as to the meaning of a penal statute must be resolved in favor of the citizen. 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law, § 18.

However reprehensible the acts of appellant may have been we are constrained to hold that because of the jury’s failure to make this distinction and the existence of ambiguities within Section 552.22, relating to punishment, which ambiguities were not otherwise clarified prior to rendition of the verdict, that portion of the final judgment imposing sentence is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to enter such sentence as the justice of the cause shall require consistent with this opinion.2

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Renaldo Reino, Sr. v. The State of Fla. & the Honorable Gerald T. Wetherington, 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1977)

…court. First, criminal statutes are to be construed strictly in favor of the person against whom a penalty is to be imposed. State v. Llopis, 257 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1971); Allure Shoe Corporation v. Lymberis, 173 So. 2d 702 (Fla.1965); Norris v. State, 249 So. 2d 746 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); Dotty v. State, 197 So. 2d 315 (Fla.4th DCA 1967). Contrary to this well established rule for construing criminal statutes, the trial judge construed the statute in question strictly against the petitioners. Second, statutes of l…
Patterson v. State, 313 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1975)

…S, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur. . Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. . 273 So. 2d 109 (Fla.App.1973) ; cert. dischg’d., 287 So. 2d 668. . 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla.App.1972); cert. dischg’d., 283 So. 2d 99. . 249 So. 2d 746 (Fla.App.1971). . 281 So. 2d 512 (Fla.App.1973). . 290 So. 2d 72 (Fla.App.1974). . See Note 3, supra, 268 So. 2d at 175. . Presently renumbered as Section 893.13(1) (f), Florida Statutes. .Presently incorporated in Section 893.13, Florida Statu…

Authorities Cited (29 total)

Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1947)
State v. Kahler, 232 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1970)
Sinclair v. State, 46 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1950)
Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1970)
Shifrin v. State, 210 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
Jackson v. State, 107 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
In re Petition to Suspend James M. Edwards, 227 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1969)
McDermott v. Kansas, 396 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1969)

View all 29 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw