Mayberry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mayberry v. State

112 So. 3d 760, 2013 WL 1974942, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2013

DocketNo. 1D11-3377

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 3d 760 (Mayberry 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

Mayberry v. State, 112 So. 3d 760, 2013 WL 1974942, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction as a principal to attempted armed robbery and second-degree felony murder. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he was a principal to the crimes. We disagree and affirm. We agree with Appellant, however, that there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that Appellant actually possessed a firearm at the time of the attempted robbery. Consequently, the imposition of the mandatory ten-year minimum sentence the trial court assessed pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes, was erroneous. We reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Appellant need not be present for the resentencing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction as a principal to attempted armed robbery and second-degree felony murder. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he was a principal to the crimes. We disagree and affirm. We agree with Appellant, however, that there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that Appellant actually possessed a firearm at the time of the attempted robbery. Consequently, the imposition of the mandatory ten-year minimum sentence the trial court assessed pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes, was erroneous. We reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Appellant need not be present for the resentencing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 3d 760, 2013 WL 1974942, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayberry-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.