Evans v. State, 91-3991

Decision Date15 October 1993
Docket NumberNo. 91-3991,91-3991
Parties18 Fla. L. Weekly D2255 Glenn EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

ALLEN, Judge.

Glenn Evans, Jr. appeals from convictions and sentences arising out of armed robberies and a high speed chase with law enforcement officers in Gainesville. He raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the jury should have been instructed that knowledge that the victim is a law enforcement officer is an element of the offense of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer; (2) whether sentencing the appellant as a habitual felony offender for the offenses of aggravated assault on law enforcement officers violates double jeopardy; (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing a twenty-five year minimum mandatory sentence for robbery with a firearm; and (4) whether the habitual felony offender statute violates equal protection, due process or the doctrine of separation of powers. We affirm on issues 1, 2, and 4, but, on issue 3, we vacate that part of the written sentencing order imposing a twenty-five year minimum mandatory sentence for robbery with a firearm.

On the first issue, the appellant argues that his knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer is an element of the crime of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, and that the jury was never instructed on that element. Although the State correctly points out that this argument was never raised below, the appellant asserts the omitted jury instruction constitutes fundamental error.

In State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1991), the supreme court held that "[f]ailing to instruct on an element of the crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error and there must be an objection to preserve the issue for appeal." There is no indication in the record before us that the appellant did not know that he was shooting at a law enforcement officer. Accordingly, any error as to this issue is not fundamental.

Moreover, we have already rejected appellant's argument on the merits. In Carpentier v. State, 587 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 654 (Fla.1992), we held that section 784.07(3), Florida Statutes (1989), does not require that the defendant have knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer when the defendant is charged with attempted murder of a law enforcement officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duty. This is the exact offense with which the appellant was charged.

On the second issue, the appellant argues that his sentences for four counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer were unconstitutionally enhanced twice: first, under section 784.07(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), the crimes were reclassified from third-degree to second-degree felonies because the victims were law enforcement officers; and second, an enhancement occurred when appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989). The supreme court recently decided a similar issue in Gayman v. State, 616 So.2d 17 (Fla.1993), in which it held no double jeopardy violation occurred when Gayman's third petit theft conviction was reclassified as a felony pursuant to section 812.014(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), and then he was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The court reasoned that section 812.014(2)(d) created a separate substantive offense, rather than merely enhancing the penalty, and thus Gayman's sentence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Thompson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1996
    ...the cases that follow, Isaac v. State, 626 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), review denied 634 So.2d 624 (Fla.1994) and Evans v. State, 625 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), that the "statute simply does not require that the offender have knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer."......
  • Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1997
    ...not prove that Mitchell knew Gort was a law enforcement officer at the time of the incident. Applying the reasoning in Evans v. State, 625 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and Carpentier v. State, 587 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So.2d 654 (Fla.1992), we hold that sectio......
  • Isaac v. State, 92-2173
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 1993
    ...related, all or in part, to the lawful duties of the officer." Such a conclusion is supported by our recent decision in Evans v. State, 625 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), in which we held that section 784.07(2)(c) creates a separate substantive offense of aggravated assault on a law enforce......
  • Johnson v. State, 92-3077
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1994
    ...834 (Fla.1993); Seabrook v. State, 629 So.2d 129 (Fla.1993); London v. State, 623 So.2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); and Evans v. State, 625 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). BOOTH, ALLEN, and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT