Lofton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lofton v. State

447 So. 2d 329, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11893

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1182

StatusPublished

This text of 447 So. 2d 329 (Lofton 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

Lofton v. State, 447 So. 2d 329, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11893 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery with a firearm. Appellant was charged with robbery with a firearm. He first urges, as error, the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of robbery with a weapon and robbery without a firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon. We agree with the decision of the majority in Wheat v. State, 433 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), that it was error not to give the requested instructions which were necessarily included lesser offenses of the charged offense of robbery with a firearm. However, we further conclude that the error was harmless. Appellant was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm, which is a second degree felony that is equivalent in punishment with the lesser of the above crimes for which he requested an instruction. Thus, he could not have received any lesser punishment for those [330]*330crimes than the crime for which he was convicted.

Appellant’s other points are also without merit.

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery with a firearm. Appellant was charged with robbery with a firearm. He first urges, as error, the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of robbery with a weapon and robbery without a firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon. We agree with the decision of the majority in Wheat v. State, 433 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), that it was error not to give the requested instructions which were necessarily included lesser offenses of the charged offense of robbery with a firearm. However, we further conclude that the error was harmless. Appellant was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm, which is a second degree felony that is equivalent in punishment with the lesser of the above crimes for which he requested an instruction. Thus, he could not have received any lesser punishment for those [330]*330crimes than the crime for which he was convicted.

Appellant’s other points are also without merit.

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 329, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lofton-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack