Fuentes v. State, 98-1690
| Decision Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1690,98-1690 |
| Citation | 730 So.2d 366 |
| Parties | Mario FUENTES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert R. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Mario Fuentes appeals the judgment entered against him after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a motor vehicle, against Arthur McCarthy; resisting arrest without violence; and reckless driving. Fuentes argues the trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury on the fourth element of aggravated assault. We agree. Resolution of this issue renders moot Fuentes' second issue regarding his sentence.
When the jury was first instructed, the trial court explained the fourth element of aggravated assault: "And four, the assault was made with a fully formed conscious intent to commit assault upon Arthur McCarthy." (Emphasis supplied). Fuentes' information charged aggravated assault relying on the use of a deadly weapon, a vehicle, rather than the alternative basis of intending to commit a felony.
While deliberating the jury asked for an explanation of the difference between assault and aggravated assault, and the trial court realized the state's typed instruction failed to include the "deadly weapon" alternative to the fourth element of aggravated assault. The jury returned and the court read the aggravated assault instruction, this time including the "deadly weapon" alternative, but again misstating the latter alternative: "Four, that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, or the assault was made with the fully formed conscious intent to commit assault upon Arthur McCarthy." (Emphasis supplied). The court explained to the jury that the distinction between assault and aggravated assault was that aggravated assault required the jury to "find that the assault was made with a deadly weapon or the assault was made with the fully formed conscious intent to commit the aggravated assault upon the victim." (Emphasis supplied).
We conclude fundamental error occurred when the jury was improperly instructed on the fourth element of aggravated assault.1 The improper instruction allowed the jury to find Fuentes guilty of aggravated assault on a theory which was not charged, see State v. Allen, 519 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and which would not support conviction, i.e., commission of a simple assault with the intent to commit the simple assault.2 By instructing the jury it could find Fuentes guilty of aggravated assault whether or not he intended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garzon v. State
...of guilt. See Taylor v. State, 760 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hodges v. State, 878 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Fuentes v. State, 730 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). For example, in Taylor, the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that it could convict Taylor......
-
Mitchell v. State, 1D03-2478.
...way. See Dixon v. State, 823 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Taylor v. State, 760 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Fuentes v. State, 730 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The proposition upon which Mitchell relies, however, does not apply to the case at bar. In each of the cases cited above, a sin......
-
Santin v. State
...4th DCA 2006); Hodges v. State, 878 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Taylor v. State, 760 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Fuentes v. State, 730 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND ORFINGER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur. 1. The trial court dismissed the false ......
-
Braggs v. State, 3D00-1315.
...instruction is also fundamental error. Taylor, 760 So.2d 298; Hendricks v. State, 744 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Fuentes v. State, 730 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Hence, were we to affirm the kidnapping convictions, we would be affirming convictions that, at law, are a nullity. This ......