Owens v. State

475 So. 2d 1238, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 523
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 12, 1985
Docket64980
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 475 So. 2d 1238 (Owens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Owens v. State, 475 So. 2d 1238, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 523 (Fla. 1985).

Opinion

475 So.2d 1238 (1985)

Johnny Ray OWENS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 64980.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 12, 1985.

Jerry Hill, Public Defender and Karla J. Staker and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defenders, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and William E. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

EHRLICH, Justice.

We accepted jurisdiction to answer the certified question:

Whether an information which alleges that a defendant "carried" a firearm is sufficient to allege an essential element of aggravated assault, an offense that is statutorily defined by section 784.021(1)(a) as an assault with a deadly weapon.

Owens v. State, 444 So.2d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Owens was charged, inter alia, with armed robbery. Section 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1981). He sought a jury instruction on aggravated assault, section 784.021, Fla. Stat. (1981), as a lesser included offense. The trial judge refused, as the information against Owens failed to allege that Owens used the gun he carried to commit an assault *1239 during the robbery. The district court affirmed, relying on Vitko v. State, 363 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In Vitko, the court distinguished between carrying a weapon, the element in section 812.13, and using a weapon, the element in section 784.021. We have endorsed this distinction in State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1984). The trial judge properly refused to give the requested instruction because the information fails to allege use of the weapon in committing an assault. The decision of the district court is approved.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.

ADKINS and OVERTON, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

J. M. v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
United States v. Barnes
Second Circuit, 2024
Severance v. State
972 So. 2d 931 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Munoz-Perez v. State
942 So. 2d 1025 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Johnson v. State
619 So. 2d 458 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Sanders v. State
621 So. 2d 723 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
State v. Alexander
591 So. 2d 1029 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Denmark v. State
538 So. 2d 68 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
State v. In the Interest of D.I.
477 So. 2d 71 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
475 So. 2d 1238, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-state-fla-1985.