Hargrove v. State, 95-1579
Decision Date | 19 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95-1579,95-1579 |
Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1418 Nathaniel HARGROVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm the conviction. Our difficulty lies in reversing--as we must--the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of a firearm. With great reluctance, we are simply unable to read State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1984), in any reasonable way that would allow the mandatory minimum sentence in this case to stand. We thus explain why we believe that result unpalatable.
Defendant was charged with murder "by shooting [victim] with a firearm." R. 665. In his opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that the evidence would show that, after being taunted by the victim, defendant "fired at least two and possibly three shots," and that "two shots we know entered the brain of [the victim] killing him instantly." In his opening statement, defense counsel began by stating that there were some "inconsequential" differences with the prosecutor's opening statement of the facts, but his entire statement to the jury was devoted to the insanity defense. In other words, he did not suggest that defendant had not shot the victim, or imply that there was any evidence suggesting that someone else shot him, or that he died by something other than a gunshot.
During trial, two other persons in the truck with the victim testified to the shooting. At least three witnesses, including one police officer, testified that defendant told them immediately afterwards that he shot the victim. After his arrest and Miranda warnings, defendant gave a confession in which he stated that he shot the victim because the victim had carried on an affair with defendant's wife. Although no weapon was ever found, the investigating officers discovered bullets in defendant's room. The defense called no witnesses and adduced no evidence. In closing argument, defense counsel told the jury that the only issue for them to decide was whether defendant was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The verdict found defendant guilty, "as to Count I of the Indictment," [sic-Information?] of second degree murder.
In Overfelt, the court said:
[emphasis supplied].
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hargrove
...minimum sentence for use of a firearm, citing this Court's opinion in State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1984). Hargrove v. State, 675 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The court examined Overfelt, and cited the following language from that "[B]efore a trial court may enhance a defendant'......
-
Tucker v. State
...of a crime which involves a firearm or by answering a specific question of a special verdict form so indicating." Hargrove v. State, 675 So.2d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Overfelt, 457 So.2d at 1387) (alteration in original). On review, we approved the Fourth District's decision......
-
Williams v. State, 97-1726
...was used. See State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 1984); King v. State, 705 So.2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Hargrove v. State, 675 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); approved, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla.1997). Thus in this case, the information should have charged Williams with possession of a semi......
-
Abbott v. State, 96-3103
...is offense enhancing rather than sentence enhancing, the courts have uniformly reversed only for resentencing. See Hargrove v. State, 675 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), approved by State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla.1997), and cases cited therein. We therefore conclude that in the prese......