JERRY LEE TILLMAN, 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.
Appellant's conviction for grand larceny under Count I is vacated and reduced to petit larceny because the information failed to allege the property value exceeded $100, and the firearm conviction sentence is vacated as a lesser included offense of the robbery conviction.
A conviction for grand larceny cannot stand when the information fails to allege that the stolen property exceeded $100 in value, and a firearm conviction sentence must be vacated when the firearm was used during the commission of the underlying robbery.
[1] A conviction for grand larceny cannot be sustained when the information fails to allege that the stolen property exceeded $100 in value, and the conviction must be reduce…
[2] A sentence imposed for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony must be vacated when the firearm was used during the commission of the underlying robbery, as the fi…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 three counts of robbery and one count of using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The jury convicted him of grand lar…
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 Use Of A Firearm In The Commission Of A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with three counts of robbery and one count of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.
The jury returned verdicts as follows: Count I: Guilty of the lesser included offense of grand larceny. Count II: Guilty of the lesser included offense of petit larceny. Count III: Guilty of robbery as charged.
Count IV: Guilty of the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony as charged. Appellant was given concurrent sentences in various lengths up to life imprisonment. There was evidence that the property stolen in the offense charged under count I was worth more than $100.
However, this fact was not alleged in the information.
Therefore, appellant could only have been convicted of petit larceny under this count. Haley v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1975, 315 So. 2d 525. The conviction of grand larceny under count I is hereby vacated with directions to enter a judgment of conviction for petit larceny. Since appellant was given the maximum sentence for grand larceny, the court may enter the maximum sixty-day sentence for petit larceny without the necessity of appellant being present. The firearm used in count IV was during the commission of the robbery under count III.
Therefore, the lesser sentence imposed under count IV is hereby vacated. Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 12. Otherwise, the judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lumia v. State, 372 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…n grand larceny and petit larceny as lesser included offenses of armed robbery. The trial court gave the instructions as requested by defense counsel. The jury found defendant guilty of grand larceny. On appeal defendant relies on Tillman v. State, 329 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), and Haley v. State, 315 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Both of these cases are to the effect that a defendant cannot be convicted of grand larceny in a situation where the information does not assert the value of the thing taken…
-
Michutka v. State, 506 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…son v. State, 436 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). If the information charges a misdemeanor and the proof adduced at trial is that the value does in fact exceed $100 the defendant nevertheless may only be convicted of a misdemeanor. Tillman v. State, 329 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Haley v. State, 315 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In the instant case Michutka was charged only with a misdemeanor, although the proof at trial was that the value of the food and lodging in question was over $400. Because Michut…
-
Hinson v. State, 436 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…odging or other accommodations in question had a value of one hundred dollars or more, we reverse and remand with instructions to correct the judgment of conviction and modify the sentence to reflect a misdemeanor conviction.1 Cf. Tillman v. State, 329 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Haley v. State, 315 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). HERSEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. . A review of the trial record fails to disclose any conduct by the defendant which would estop his right to assert the error complaine…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Haley v. State, 315 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)