Hollingsworth v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollingsworth v. State

981 So. 2d 481, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 2016, 2008 WL 373607

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

DocketNo. 1D07-0297

StatusPublished

This text of 981 So. 2d 481 (Hollingsworth 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

Hollingsworth v. State, 981 So. 2d 481, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 2016, 2008 WL 373607 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Lonnie Hollingsworth, appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. He contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that he put the victim in fear or that he used a deadly weapon. Although we reject the first argument, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law by allowing the jury to determine whether the defendant carried a deadly weapon. The state proved that the defendant brandished a metallic object which may have been a door handle. The object was not used in a way likely to cause death or great bodily harm so it does not qualify as a deadly weapon. Accordingly, we reverse with instructions to enter a conviction for the lesser included offense of robbery with a weapon. Because we are not able to determine whether the trial judge would have imposed the same sentence on the lesser charge, we remand for resentencing.

WOLF, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Lonnie Hollingsworth, appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. He contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that he put the victim in fear or that he used a deadly weapon. Although we reject the first argument, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law by allowing the jury to determine whether the defendant carried a deadly weapon. The state proved that the defendant brandished a metallic object which may have been a door handle. The object was not used in a way likely to cause death or great bodily harm so it does not qualify as a deadly weapon. Accordingly, we reverse with instructions to enter a conviction for the lesser included offense of robbery with a weapon. Because we are not able to determine whether the trial judge would have imposed the same sentence on the lesser charge, we remand for resentencing.

WOLF, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

981 So. 2d 481, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 2016, 2008 WL 373607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingsworth-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.