Scaife v. State

767 So. 2d 492, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5771, 2000 WL 627665
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 17, 2000
DocketNo. 1D99-30
StatusPublished

This text of 767 So. 2d 492 (Scaife 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
Scaife v. State, 767 So. 2d 492, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5771, 2000 WL 627665 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

Edward Scaife (Appellant) appeals the trial court’s reclassification of his second-degree felony aggravated battery conviction, as a first-degree felony for sentencing purposes. Appellant was convicted of “aggravated battery with great bodily harm or with a firearm.” Appellant argues that the alternative manner in which the aggravated battery was charged allowed the jury to convict on a theory of aggravated battery with great bodily harm or aggravated battery with a firearm and, under such circumstances, reclassification is improper.. We agree and reverse.

Reclassification of an aggravated battery conviction from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony is error when it is unclear from the verdict form whether a defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, for which reclassification is available, or aggravated battery with the use of a firearm, for which reclassification is not available because use of a firearm is an essential element of the offense. See Montgomery v. State, 704 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); McNeal v. State, 653 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In the case at bar, the jury’s verdict provided that Appellant was: “Guilty of aggravated battery with great bodily harm or with a firearm.” Because it is unclear from the verdict form whether the jury convicted Appellant of aggravated battery with use of a firearm, or aggravated battery with great bodily harm, reclassification was error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing under a corrected sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Upon re-sentencing, as agreed by the parties in their briefs, Appellant should receive a three-year minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MINER and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Related

McNeal v. State
653 So. 2d 1122 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Montgomery v. State
704 So. 2d 548 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
767 So. 2d 492, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5771, 2000 WL 627665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scaife-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.