Lunsford v. State
Decision Date | 09 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-69,82-69 |
Citation | 426 So.2d 1178 |
Parties | Richard Allen LUNSFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Cynthia Karl-Stamm, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The appellant, Richard Allen Lunsford, was convicted of robbery with a weapon of a convenience store in St. Cloud. The cashier of the store identified him, both at pre-trial proceedings and at trial, as the culprit. His defense was alibi: he and two friends placed him elsewhere at the time of the robbery. The fact that the robbery occurred, and was completed, was uncontroverted.
At the jury charge conference, the defense attorney requested an instruction on attempted robbery. The trial court refused to give this instruction, and the defendant objected. At the charge conference, the following exchange took place MR. WOLFE (Defense Attorney): I would request an instruction on petit theft, request an instruction on attempt.
In the jury charge, the judge included the lesser offenses of: robbery without a weapon; aggravated assault; grand theft; assault and petit theft. The appellant urges that the trial court's refusal to charge on attempt was reversible error.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510 eliminates the need to give a requested lesser offense instruction when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense. See: In the Matter of the Use of the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, Nos. 56,734 and 58,799 (Fla. Apr. 16, 1981) [6 FLW 305].
Rule 3.510 reads as follows:
Upon an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried for any offense the jury may convict the defendant of:
(a) an attempt to commit such offense if such attempt is an offense and is supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct the jury if there is no evidence to support such attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense. (Emphasis added.)
(b) any offense which as a matter of law is a necessarily included offense or a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the indictment or information and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. State, s. 84-1460
...trial. Bufford v. State, 473 So.2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).8 See Henry v. State, 445 So.2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Lunsford v. State, 426 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Boston v. State, 411 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. den., 418 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1982).9 Cannon v. State, 456 So.2d 5......
-
Jones v. State, 84-2024
...of both the Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal. See Henry v. State, 445 So.2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); 3 Lunsford v. State, 426 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). 4 B Where a trial court erroneously instructs a jury on a lesser offense, which is not a proper lesser offense of the crime......
-
Wilson v. State
...was justified in refusing to give instructions on attempt where the only evidence proved a completed offense). Cf. Lunsford v. State, 426 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (where the evidence unequivocally showed someone had committed a robbery, and the defense's alibi placed the defendant els......
-
Julian v. Lee
...or other proceedings control the conduct of those proceedings. Kocsis v. State, 467 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), Lunsford v. State, 426 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Because the rules in effect when the motions for discharge were filed provided for a 180-day "speedy trial" period in dep......