Legette v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Legette v. State

694 So. 2d 826, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5572, 1997 WL 266634

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1997

DocketNo. 95-03100

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 694 So. 2d 826 (Legette 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

Legette v. State, 694 So. 2d 826, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5572, 1997 WL 266634 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Albert Legette appeals his judgment and sentences following his convictions of attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm. Mr. Legette contends that the dual convictions constitute a double jeopardy violation. Despite the state’s concession of error on this issue, we conclude these two offenses each require proof of an element that the other does not. § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Robbery requires that force, violence, or fear be used during the course of the offense. § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1993). By contrast, improper exhibition requires neither force, violence, or fear. § 790.10, Fla. Stat. (1993). Improper exhibition is established when a weapon is exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, whereas robbery does not require exhibition of the weapon in such a manner. Cf. Kase v. State, 581 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (no double jeopardy violation for convictions of improper exhibition of a weapon and aggravated assault). Because the elements required to prove improper exhibition of a firearm are not subsumed in the attempted robbery with a firearm, these convictions do not result in a double jeopardy violation.

We also approve the trial court’s imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence for Mr. Legette’s conviction for attempted robbery with a firearm. Although Mr. Legette was 20 years old when he committed this first offense, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining to impose a youthful offender sentence. See § 958.021, Fla. Stat. (1993); Ellis v. State, 475 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Albert Legette appeals his judgment and sentences following his convictions of attempted robbery with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm. Mr. Legette contends that the dual convictions constitute a double jeopardy violation. Despite the state’s concession of error on this issue, we conclude these two offenses each require proof of an element that the other does not. § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Robbery requires that force, violence, or fear be used during the course of the offense. § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1993). By contrast, improper exhibition requires neither force, violence, or fear. § 790.10, Fla. Stat. (1993). Improper exhibition is established when a weapon is exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, whereas robbery does not require exhibition of the weapon in such a manner. Cf. Kase v. State, 581 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (no double jeopardy violation for convictions of improper exhibition of a weapon and aggravated assault). Because the elements required to prove improper exhibition of a firearm are not subsumed in the attempted robbery with a firearm, these convictions do not result in a double jeopardy violation.

We also approve the trial court’s imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence for Mr. Legette’s conviction for attempted robbery with a firearm. Although Mr. Legette was 20 years old when he committed this first offense, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining to impose a youthful offender sentence. See § 958.021, Fla. Stat. (1993); Ellis v. State, 475 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 826, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5572, 1997 WL 266634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/legette-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack