Lareau v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-0576,89-0576 |
| Citation | 554 So.2d 638 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D61 Hervey LAREAU, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Patricia G. Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm the appellant's conviction and sentence which was enhanced, by the use of a firearm, from a second to a first degree felony.
The defendant, charged with attempted murder, entered a negotiated plea to the reduced charge of aggravated battery. An aggravated battery may be committed by either: (a) causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement; or (b) use of a deadly weapon. § 784.045(1), Fla.Stat. (1985). The record reflects that this plea was negotiated, entered, and accepted as made under subsection (a) of the statute, by causing great bodily harm. The plea also included an acknowledgment that the crime was committed with a firearm.
The defendant understood that the state would contend, and that the court might find, that the sentence should be enhanced by the application of section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1985):
Unless otherwise provided by law, whenever a person is charged with a felony, except a felony in which the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element, and during the commission of such felony the defendant carries, displays, uses, threatens, or attempts to use any weapon or firearm, ... the felony for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(b) In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree.
We note that the defendant has not sought to withdraw his plea, nor does he contest the imposition of the three year mandatory minimum for use of a firearm.
It is undisputed that a defendant convicted of an aggravated battery by using a deadly weapon, under section 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes, may not be subjected to further enhancement of the penalty through the application of section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes, because the weapon is, as defined under that subsection, an essential element of the offense. E.g., Bradfield v. State, 438 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Senterfitt v. State, 515 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So.2d 578 (Fla.1988); Webb v. State, 410 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 421 So.2d 68 (Fla.1982); Bell v. State, 394 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also Williams v. State, 358 So.2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
The appellant principally relies upon the statement in Bradfield that an aggravated battery, already being an enhanced battery, is "not subject to being further enhanced by the use of section 775.087(1)."
The state argues that an aggravated battery sentence is subject to enhancement by use of a firearm where the conviction is founded only upon subsection (a) (great bodily harm) of 784.045(1), and where the use of a firearm is asserted solely for the purpose of enhancement. This is apparently an issue of first impression although, by dicta, two opinions have recognized that there may be a potential distinction as argued by the state.
In Williams v. State, this court held that a conviction for aggravated assault with a weapon was not subject to enhancement because the use of the weapon under the verdict was an essential element of the conviction. However, the opinion went on to recognize that aggravated assault, under section 784.021 may be committed either by use of a weapon or by committing an assault with the intent to commit a felony, and stated:
We do not reach the question as to whether an enhancement of the penalty is available if the accused is convicted of an aggravated assault by assaulting with the intent to commit a felony and a weapon is used. This case is not the proper case to do so because the verdict of the jury was "guilty of aggravated assault with a weapon" and the judgment on the verdict reads the same.
Similarly, in Bell v. State, involving a conviction for aggravated battery under subsection (b) use of a deadly weapon, the court recognized:
A problem arises in this case from the fact that there are two separate and distinct types of aggravated battery, i.e., a battery under section 784.045(1)(a) which intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, and a battery under section 784.045(1)(b) which is committed by one who uses a deadly weapon. Obviously in a given case, as here, the facts could be that great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement resulted from the use of a deadly weapon. However, distinctions between these two species of aggravated battery must be carefully made and preserved because of the necessity of procedural and substantive consistency between allegations, proof, verdict, judgment and punishment in criminal cases. Neither battery nor either type of aggravated battery is a necessarily lesser included offense of attempted murder but either type of aggravated battery could have been alleged as a permissible lesser included offense of the attempted murder charge. See Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968).
* * * * * *
Of course, every deadly weapon as used in section 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), (the second type of aggravated battery) is a weapon within the exception in section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1979). Therefore, no conviction of aggravated battery under the "deadly weapon" subsection can be enhanced under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1979). See Williams v. State, 358 So.2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), reaching the same conclusion as to an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon ( § 784.021(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979)). Here, as there, we do not reach the question as to whether a battery causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement can be reclassified under section 775.087(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), where a weapon is used because here the allegations, instructions, verdicts and judgments relate only to aggravated battery by a firearm.
394 So.2d at 571. The court also added the following footnote:
We do note that if enhancement is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. State, 88-2542
...dissenting in part. I concur in the affirmance of appellant's conviction but disagree as to the enhancement issue. In Lareau v. State, 554 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), this court noted that a defendant convicted of aggravated battery by using a weapon, may not be subjected to further enha......
-
Traylor v. State
...Gonzalez, 585 So.2d at 933. We adopted the concurring and dissenting opinion of then Judge Anstead, who relied upon Lareau v. State, 554 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), which held that even though the use of a weapon is not a necessary element in every aggravated battery case, it is not prop......
-
Lareau v. State
...Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We accepted jurisdiction to resolve an asserted conflict between Lareau v. State, 554 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and Bradfield v. State, 438 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). 1 The issue is whether section 775.087(1) of the Florida Statute......
-
Nesbitt v. State, 92-0559
...a firearm in the commission of the offense. This was error. See Gonzalez v. State, 585 So.2d 932 (Fla.1991); see also Lareau v. State, 554 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), approved, 573 So.2d 813, 815 We therefore affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence, and remand for resentencing in ......