Reno v. State

121 So. 3d 1174, 2013 WL 5309811, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15065
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 23, 2013·No. No. 1D12-3163·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s conviction for attempted second-degree murder because the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to establish the “depraved mind” element of that offense. See § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat. (2011) (defining second-degree murder). Of the two lesser-included offenses on which the jury was instructed, the evidence and the jury’s verdict were sufficient to establish only improper exhibition of a firearm. Under the [1175] mandatory language of section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2011), we therefore remand this case for the trial court to enter a judgment of conviction for improper exhibition of a firearm and resentence him accordingly. See State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835, 844 (Fla.2007) (recognizing that section 924.34 applies to a permissive lesser-included offense where the jury’s verdict necessarily includes a finding of guilt as to that offense); Festa v. State, 927 So.2d 1049, 1051-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that the State does not have a second opportunity to prove a lesser-included offense where the evidence of the greater offense was insufficient at a jury trial and the jury was not instructed on the lesser offense).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ„ concur.

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

Reno v. State, 121 So. 3d 1174, 2013 WL 5309811, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15065 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

121 So. 3d 1174 (Reno v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State of Florida v. Luis Antonio Perez Franco
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026