Duvall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duvall v. State

835 So. 2d 1224, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 752, 2003 WL 186972

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 2003

DocketNo. 4D01-2467

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 835 So. 2d 1224 (Duvall 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

Duvall v. State, 835 So. 2d 1224, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 752, 2003 WL 186972 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions in this case. The judgment of conviction reflects that under count III, appellant was convicted of grand theft with a firearm. The trial judge properly instructed the jury only on the crime of grand theft as a lesser included offense of attempted carjacking. He did not also give an instruction on attempted grand theft. Unlike State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983), this was not a case where the jury was charged on attempted grand theft and, as a separate crime, grand theft. The verdict forms given to the jury for count III were for attempted carjacking with a firearm, attempted grand theft, attempted battery, aggravated assault, battery, and assault. The defendant did not object at trial to either the verdict forms or the charge to the jury. We agree with the state’s contention that the inclusion of the word “attempted” on the grand theft verdict form in this case was a scrivener’s error, not a fundamental error. See Lyons v. State, 690 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We agree with appellant that the victim’s statements to his aunt were hearsay, but we find the errors to be harmless.

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions in this case. The judgment of conviction reflects that under count III, appellant was convicted of grand theft with a firearm. The trial judge properly instructed the jury only on the crime of grand theft as a lesser included offense of attempted carjacking. He did not also give an instruction on attempted grand theft. Unlike State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983), this was not a case where the jury was charged on attempted grand theft and, as a separate crime, grand theft. The verdict forms given to the jury for count III were for attempted carjacking with a firearm, attempted grand theft, attempted battery, aggravated assault, battery, and assault. The defendant did not object at trial to either the verdict forms or the charge to the jury. We agree with the state’s contention that the inclusion of the word “attempted” on the grand theft verdict form in this case was a scrivener’s error, not a fundamental error. See Lyons v. State, 690 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We agree with appellant that the victim’s statements to his aunt were hearsay, but we find the errors to be harmless.

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 1224, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 752, 2003 WL 186972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duvall-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack