RUDOLPH GRANT, 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.
The court held that the amended information reduced the charge to a first-degree felony, making the original sentence excessive.
Appellant was charged with involuntary sexual battery, and the State amended the information before trial, which the prosecutor acknowledged reduced t…
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 Amended Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was initially charged in Count I of the information with involuntary sexual battery by using a deadly weapon or actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury, a life felony. Immediately before trial, the State filed an amended information charging appellant in Count I with involuntary sexual battery by threatening to use force likely to cause serious personal injury, a first degree felony.
Although the State contends on appeal that the amended information did not reduce the charge from a life felony to a felony of the first degree, the trial transcript belies that contention. The prosecutor stated without equivocation that the amended information charged appellant with a first degree felony. We agree with the prosecutor. Therefore, the court was in error in sentencing appellant to forty-six years, two hundred and sixty-five days imprisonment on Count I. The maximum sentence allowable for Count I as amended, a first degree felony, is thirty years.
We have carefully examined all of appellant’s other points and find no reversible error involved therein.
Accordingly, the sentence appealed from is modified so as to reduce the sentence on Count I to thirty years. In all other respects the judgment and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
ALDERMAN, C. J., DOWNEY, J., and PARHAM, HARRY C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Tuan Anh Truong, 629 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…tion given in answer to a question the jury asked. We find that there was no error in the minor modification to the standard charge. Even were it to have been error, a full review of the transcript convinces us it was harmless. See Edwards v. State, 351 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Appellant also challenges as cumulative various other evidentiary rulings. However, the objections made at trial did not preserve most of these issues for appeal or they were harmless. Having reviewed the full trial transcri…
-
Holmes v. State, 412 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…a number of cases. See, e.g., State v. Bryan, 287 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 912, 94 S.Ct. 2611, 41 L.Ed.2d 216 (1974); Davis v. State, 373 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 756 (Fla.1980); Edwards v. State, 351 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). . At the charge conference the attorneys for appellant and his codefendant submitted a written request for a jury instruction that intent to deprive the victim is an essential element of the crime, citing the Supreme Court’s op…