Saunders v. State

405 So. 2d 1037, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21588
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 10, 1981
DocketNo. 80-874
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 1037 (Saunders 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
Saunders v. State, 405 So. 2d 1037, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21588 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Because we discern no fundamental error in the trial court’s instructions to the jury, we affirm defendant Saunders’ convictions for burglary of a structure and battery. The information alleged that during the burglary Saunders assaulted Neil Chris-tiansen by “striking him about the head and body.” Initially, and without objection by defense counsel, the court gave no instruction on the element of assault, but subsequently, in response to a request by the jury, the court defined assault in dictionary terms.1 In so doing, the court imposed a greater burden upon the state than that encompassed in the legal definition 2 of assault, but in view of the wording of the information, the court’s instruction was not inappropriate.

We find error in the court’s sentence for battery imposed in Count II. According to section 784.08(2), Florida Statutes (1979), battery is a misdemeanor of the first degree. The punishment for a misdemeanor of the first degree is a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year. § 775.-082(4Xa), Fla.Stat. (1979). The sentence of four years imprisonment followed by two years in a community control program with a mandatory minimum of one year imprisonment, imposed in accordance with the youthful offender statute, section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1979), exceeds the lawful maximum for the crime of battery. Rejecting as without merit the state’s argument that because defendant “reaped the benefit” of a lawful sentence in Count I, he should not be allowed to complain about an unlawful sentence in Count II, we reduce the sentence for Count II to one year imprisonment concurrent with Count I and vacate the mandatory minimum imposed in Count II.

Affirmed as modified.

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

Related

Milbry v. State
469 So. 2d 137 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
405 So. 2d 1037, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.