Thayer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thayer v. State

609 So. 2d 150, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12223, 1992 WL 355344

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 2, 1992

DocketNo. 91-03932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 609 So. 2d 150 (Thayer 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

Thayer v. State, 609 So. 2d 150, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12223, 1992 WL 355344 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Lawrence Louis Thayer appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and the sentence imposed thereon. We remand for entry of a judgment of robbery without a firearm and for resentencing.

Thayer seeks to suppress the victim’s photopack identification of him. We conclude that the trial judge’s findings are supported by the record and that he did not abuse his discretion in concluding that there was not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981).

We, however, agree with Thayer in his argument that he could not be convicted of possessing a firearm during the robbery. A “[fjirearm means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” § 790.001(6), Fla.Stat. (1989). Thayer wielded a starter pistol during the robbery. There was a plug in the pistol and the trigger action did not work. Most courts have held that an unmodified starter gun does not [151]*151meet the requirements of a firearm. See, e.g., Charley v. State, 590 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ridley v. State, 441 So.2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 431 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). But see Nash v. State, 374 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). A starter gun generally is not designed to expel a projectile. The gun in this case would not expel a projectile. Further, the starter gun in this case could not be converted readily to expel a projectile in that the plug in the pistol would have to be drilled and the trigger mechanism was not working. Thus, this case must be remanded for entry of a judgment under section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989).¹ See Ridley.

Lastly, the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing that sentencing pursuant to the habitual violent felony offender statute was mandatory. The trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s decision in Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992). The Burdick court held that the trial court is not required to sentence a habitual offender to a habitual offender sentence. The trial court may reconsider upon resentencing whether it should impose a habitual violent felony offender sentence.

Remanded for entry of a judgment of robbery pursuant to section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989) and for resentenc-ing.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Lawrence Louis Thayer appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and the sentence imposed thereon. We remand for entry of a judgment of robbery without a firearm and for resentencing.

Thayer seeks to suppress the victim’s photopack identification of him. We conclude that the trial judge’s findings are supported by the record and that he did not abuse his discretion in concluding that there was not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981).

We, however, agree with Thayer in his argument that he could not be convicted of possessing a firearm during the robbery. A “[fjirearm means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” § 790.001(6), Fla.Stat. (1989). Thayer wielded a starter pistol during the robbery. There was a plug in the pistol and the trigger action did not work. Most courts have held that an unmodified starter gun does not [151]*151meet the requirements of a firearm. See, e.g., Charley v. State, 590 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ridley v. State, 441 So.2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 431 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). But see Nash v. State, 374 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). A starter gun generally is not designed to expel a projectile. The gun in this case would not expel a projectile. Further, the starter gun in this case could not be converted readily to expel a projectile in that the plug in the pistol would have to be drilled and the trigger mechanism was not working. Thus, this case must be remanded for entry of a judgment under section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989).¹ See Ridley.

Lastly, the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing that sentencing pursuant to the habitual violent felony offender statute was mandatory. The trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s decision in Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992). The Burdick court held that the trial court is not required to sentence a habitual offender to a habitual offender sentence. The trial court may reconsider upon resentencing whether it should impose a habitual violent felony offender sentence.

Remanded for entry of a judgment of robbery pursuant to section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989) and for resentenc-ing.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 So. 2d 150, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12223, 1992 WL 355344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thayer-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack