Acensio v. State
| Decision Date | 30 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67888,67888 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 549,497 So.2d 640 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 549 Erineo ACENSIO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, Chief, Appellate Division, Bartow, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Frank Migliore, Jr. and Kim W. Munch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
This cause is before us to review a decision of the district court affirming petitioner's conviction for aggravated battery. Acensio v. State, 477 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The court expressly relied on State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1978), a decision involving a factual situation materially at variance with the facts of the instant case. Based on the conflict created by this misapplication of law, we have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So.2d 520 (Fla.1980).
The state charged petitioner with attempted first-degree murder in the shooting of Alec Carmichael in violation of sections 777.04, 782.04, and 775.087, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 777.04 sets forth the criminal offense of attempt. Section 782.04 sets forth the criminal offense of murder. Section 775.087 is an enhancement statute reclassifying the degree of a charged felony during which the defendant used a weapon or firearm. Petitioner was convicted of aggravated battery with the use of a firearm, a second-degree felony. Petitioner appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a requested instruction on battery and in denying his motion to suppress his confession.
The district court assumed, for the purpose of its opinion, that battery is a lesser included offense of attempted first-degree murder, thus entitling petitioner to an instruction on battery. However, applying the Abreau harmless error test, the court affirmed the conviction finding harmless error in the trial court's failure to give the instruction.
This finding was based on the faulty premise that because the jury was instructed on attempted manslaughter, they had an opportunity to convict the defendant of attempted manslaughter. Such was not the case because the verdict forms submitted to the jury did not correspond to the jury instructions. * The forms included only first-degree murder with the use of a firearm, second-degree murder with the use of a firearm, attempted manslaughter with the use of a firearm, and aggravated battery. Based on these facts, the Abreau harmless error test does not apply.
Abreau stands for the rule that a refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense two steps removed from the offense for which defendant is convicted is harmless error. As we illustrated in Abreau,
if a defendant is charged with offense "A" of which "B" is the next immediate lesser-included offense (one step removed) and "C" is the next below "B" (two steps removed), then when the jury is instructed on "B" yet still convicts the accused of "A" it is logical to assume that the panel would not have found him guilty only of "C" (that is, would have passed over "B"), so that the failure to instruct on "C" is harmless.
Believing that the verdict forms conformed to the jury instructions given, the district court found that the instruction on attempted manslaughter (a third-degree felony) provided the required intervening step between the second-degree felony of aggravated battery for which defendant was convicted and the first-degree misdemeanor of battery for which an instruction was denied. The jury's opportunity to convict defendant was limited, however, to those offenses for which forms were provided. Since the jury found the defendant guilty of the least serious offense available to them, the Abreau harmless error test does not apply to these facts.
Having resolved the conflict created by the misapplication of Abreau to these facts, we proceed with a discussion of the merits. The district court erred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc.
...v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 904 (Fla.2002) (stating that misapplication of decisional law creates conflict jurisdiction); Acensio v. State, 497 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla.1986) (accepting jurisdiction based on conflict created by misapplication of decisional law). We disapprove the decision under rev......
-
Basulto v. Automotive
...the Third District's decision in Basulto has created misapplication conflict with our decision in Seifert. See generally Acensio v. State, 497 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla.1986) (“Based on the conflict created by [the] misapplication of law, we have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Flo......
-
Holland v. State
...offense (attempted first-degree murder), we cannot treat the failure to give the instructions as harmless error. See Acensio v. State, 497 So.2d 640 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction on all counts is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a competency hearing and new REVE......
-
Caso v. State
...be overturned if there is competent, substantial evidence which would support the decision under the correct analysis. Cf. Acensio v. State, 497 So.2d 640 (Fla.1986) (a trial court's findings in regard to whether a confession was freely and voluntarily given are clothed with a presumption o......