LEONARD R. LANGLEY, 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.
Leonard Langley appealed his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, larceny of firearms, and possession of burglary tools. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction but partially reversed the sentencing, vacating the consecutive sentences for the lesser offenses and affirming only the six-month to fifteen-year sentence for the primary offense.
The trial court properly submitted the entrapment question to the jury where conflicting evidence existed on the issue, and the conviction is affirmed. The consecutive sentences for the lesser offenses are vacated, and only the sentence for the primary offense (breaking and entering) is allowed to stand.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment if there is any evidence introduced to support the defense.
[2] When a defendant admits the commission of the act charged but claims entrapment, the issue of whether entrapment occurred is a question for the jury.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Under such circumstances, the question of entrapment was properly submitted to the jury.”
Establishes that when conflicting evidence exists on entrapment, the issue must go to the jury and a directed acquittal is improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLangley was convicted by jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, larceny of firearms, and possession of burglary tools. An …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon a jury verdict, Langley was convicted of the following crimes: (1) breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny; (2) larceny of firearms; and (3) possession of burglary tools. The trial court imposed three consecutive sentences of six months to fifteen years; hence this appeal by Langley.
Langley’s primary defense at trial to each of the offenses was that of entrapment. He now asserts that the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of his case as the evidence clearly showed he was entrapped. The transcript of testimony reflects that an informant advised a Duval County deputy sheriff that the informant’s cohorts, including Langley, planned to burglarize a place of business in Marion County on a night certain. A stakeout by law enforcement officers resulted in the apprehension of Langley and his companions in the act of perpetrating the crimes. Langley insists that his story that he was enticed by the informant into participating in the criminal activities coupled with the admission by one of the police officers that the informant also participated in the criminal episode, shows entrapment as a matter of law. However, a review of the record reveals that there was conflicting evidence on the issue of entrapment. Under such circumstances, the question of entrapment was properly submitted to the jury. State v. Rouse, 239 So. 2d 79 (Fla.App. 4th 1970).
Appellant’s second point on appeal, viz: “The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the offenses of breaking and entering with intent to com mit a felony, larceny of firearms, and possession of burglary tools since each count involved a facet or phase of the same criminal act” is meritable. The state, with commendable candor, admits that in light of the recent Supreme Court’s opinion rendered in Foster v. State, 286 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1973), the sentence imposed for the highest offense should be allowed to stand and the lesser sentences be vacated. The sentences imposed by the trial court upon Langley for committing the crimes of larceny of firearms and possession of burglary tools are vacated and set aside. The sentence of 6 months to 14 years imposed by the trial court upon Langley for committing the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony is affirmed without the necessity of bringing Langley before the trial court for resentencing. Johnson v. State, 260 So. 2d 212 (1 Fla.App. 1st 1972).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McHANEY v. State, 295 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…rt. SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. . Von Eberstein v. State, 270 So. 2d 444 (1 Fla.App.1972) ; and Turnnett v. State, 116 Fla. 562, 156 So. 538 (Fla.1934). . Adams v. State, 242 So. 2d 723 (1 Fla.App.1971). Also see Langley v. State, Fla.App., 292 So. 2d 613, Opinion filed April 11, 1974; Edmond v. State, 280 So. 2d 449 (2 Fla.App.1973), cert. denied 287 So. 2d 690; Hardrick v. State, Fla.App., 293 So. 2d 135, Opinion filed April 19, 1974; and Ashley v. State, Fla.App., 292 So. 2d 616, Opinion filed Apr…
-
Brooke v. State, 334 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Rouse, Fla.App. 4th, 239 So. 2d 79 (1970); State v. Liptak, Fla., 227 So. 2d 19 (1973), and Langley v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 292 So. 2d 613 (1974). RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 286 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Rouse, 239 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Sinclair Johnson v. State, 260 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)