Antosh v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Antosh v. State

510 So. 2d 1158, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1954, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1075

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 510 So. 2d 1158 (Antosh v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antosh v. State, 510 So. 2d 1158, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1954, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Randall G. Antosh from a conviction for the misdemeanor of discharging a firearm in public [§ 790.15, Fla.Stat.(1985) ] and an order placing the defendant on one-year probation. We affirm the conviction and probation order under review, but strike a probationary condition imposed by the trial court which requires the defendant to make a $2,500 contribution to a named charity. We reach this result based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

[1159]*1159First, we see no merit in the defendant’s central contention that the crime for which he was convicted was not a proper lesser included offense in the crime for which he was charged in the information. This is so because (1) the defendant did not object to a jury charge below on discharging a firearm in public as a lesser offense, and (2) the offense of discharging a firearm in public is lesser in degree and penalty than the offense charged in the information. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.1981).

Second, we see no merit in the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of carrying a concealed weapon as, plainly, this was not a category one or category two lesser offense in the crime charged in the information. This being so, no charge on this offense was required. See Hall v. State, 460 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985); Green v. State, 459 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); San Fratello v. State, 154 So.2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). The remaining point concerning a jury question has no merit and requires no discussion.

Third, there is no statutory authority which authorizes a trial court to impose as a condition of probation that the defendant make a contribution to a charity, as here. This being so, the probationary condition imposed in this case that the defendant make a $2,500 contribution to “The Deed Club” cannot stand. See Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Donald & Bales Exterminating, Inc. v. State, 487 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Purvis v. State, 442 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

The conviction and probation order under review is affirmed, save for the probation condition that the defendant make a $2,500 charitable contribution to “The Deed Club,” which condition is hereby stricken from the order of probation.

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Randall G. Antosh from a conviction for the misdemeanor of discharging a firearm in public [§ 790.15, Fla.Stat.(1985) ] and an order placing the defendant on one-year probation. We affirm the conviction and probation order under review, but strike a probationary condition imposed by the trial court which requires the defendant to make a $2,500 contribution to a named charity. We reach this result based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

[1159]*1159First, we see no merit in the defendant’s central contention that the crime for which he was convicted was not a proper lesser included offense in the crime for which he was charged in the information. This is so because (1) the defendant did not object to a jury charge below on discharging a firearm in public as a lesser offense, and (2) the offense of discharging a firearm in public is lesser in degree and penalty than the offense charged in the information. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.1981).

Second, we see no merit in the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of carrying a concealed weapon as, plainly, this was not a category one or category two lesser offense in the crime charged in the information. This being so, no charge on this offense was required. See Hall v. State, 460 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985); Green v. State, 459 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); San Fratello v. State, 154 So.2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). The remaining point concerning a jury question has no merit and requires no discussion.

Third, there is no statutory authority which authorizes a trial court to impose as a condition of probation that the defendant make a contribution to a charity, as here. This being so, the probationary condition imposed in this case that the defendant make a $2,500 contribution to “The Deed Club” cannot stand. See Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Donald & Bales Exterminating, Inc. v. State, 487 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Purvis v. State, 442 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

The conviction and probation order under review is affirmed, save for the probation condition that the defendant make a $2,500 charitable contribution to “The Deed Club,” which condition is hereby stricken from the order of probation.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 1158, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1954, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antosh-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack