Reynolds v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reynolds v. State

352 So. 2d 1263, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16893

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1977

DocketNo. 76-328

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 1263 (Reynolds 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

Reynolds v. State, 352 So. 2d 1263, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16893 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant R. B. Reynolds was charged with robbery. At trial, the court announced that it intended to instruct the jury on robbery and petit larceny. Defense counsel requested instructions on assault with intent to commit robbery and attempted robbery. The court denied this request and gave the instructions as announced. Thereafter, the jury found appellant guilty as charged.

Two days after trial the court held a sentencing hearing. Having pronounced sentence on the robbery, the court revoked appellant’s term of probation for another offense on the basis of the jury’s verdict in the robbery trial.

On this appeal, appellant questions the validity of both the conviction and the order revoking probation.

Attempted robbery and assault with intent to commit robbery were both lesser included offenses of robbery. See Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968). Since this was the case, the court should have instructed the jury on these crimes, and its failure to do so cannot be considered harmless. Lomax v. State, 345 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1977).

We must also reverse the revocation order. In State v. Spratling, 336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976), the supreme court said, “In the absence of stipulation or consent, the trial of the criminal case should not be construed as a probation revocation hearing but can be treated as such upon stipulation or consent made before or after the trial.” Spra-tling, supra at 364. The record in the present case is devoid of a stipulation by appellant to the court substituting the criminal trial for a revocation hearing. Because of this, the trial court should have held a hearing on the issue of whether appellant’s probation was to be revoked. See Hooks v. State, 207 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

We reverse appellant’s conviction on the charge of robbery and remand that case for a new trial. We also reverse the order revoking appellant’s probation and remand that case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant R. B. Reynolds was charged with robbery. At trial, the court announced that it intended to instruct the jury on robbery and petit larceny. Defense counsel requested instructions on assault with intent to commit robbery and attempted robbery. The court denied this request and gave the instructions as announced. Thereafter, the jury found appellant guilty as charged.

Two days after trial the court held a sentencing hearing. Having pronounced sentence on the robbery, the court revoked appellant’s term of probation for another offense on the basis of the jury’s verdict in the robbery trial.

On this appeal, appellant questions the validity of both the conviction and the order revoking probation.

Attempted robbery and assault with intent to commit robbery were both lesser included offenses of robbery. See Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968). Since this was the case, the court should have instructed the jury on these crimes, and its failure to do so cannot be considered harmless. Lomax v. State, 345 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1977).

We must also reverse the revocation order. In State v. Spratling, 336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976), the supreme court said, “In the absence of stipulation or consent, the trial of the criminal case should not be construed as a probation revocation hearing but can be treated as such upon stipulation or consent made before or after the trial.” Spra-tling, supra at 364. The record in the present case is devoid of a stipulation by appellant to the court substituting the criminal trial for a revocation hearing. Because of this, the trial court should have held a hearing on the issue of whether appellant’s probation was to be revoked. See Hooks v. State, 207 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

We reverse appellant’s conviction on the charge of robbery and remand that case for a new trial. We also reverse the order revoking appellant’s probation and remand that case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 So. 2d 1263, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack