Rogers v. State, 2D03-3254.
| Decision Date | 18 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-3254.,2D03-3254. |
| Parties | Ennis Leonard ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J.L. "Ray" LeGrande of LeGrande & LeGrande, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Ennis Leonard Rogers challenges his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. We affirm Rogers' conviction without discussion, but reverse Rogers' sentence and remand for resentencing.
Rogers was charged by information that alleged:
On or about June 14, 2002 in Lee County, Florida, [Rogers] did unlawfully commit a battery upon Tony Peterson, Jr., by actually and intentionally touching or striking said person against said person's will or by intentionally causing bodily harm to said person, and in committing said battery, did intentionally or knowingly cause great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the said Tony Peterson, Jr., or did use a deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm, contrary to Florida Statute 784.045; 775.087(2)(a)(3)....
(Emphasis added.)
After a bench trial, the trial court announced the following verdict:
(Emphasis added.)
Rogers was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2001), which provides for an enhanced sentence when a person discharges a firearm during the commission of an enumerated felony and thereby inflicts serious bodily harm. The State concedes that the trial court erred by enhancing Rogers' sentence because the information alleged that Rogers "did use" a firearm but it did not allege that he "discharged" the firearm.
The grounds for enhancement of a sentence must be charged in the information. See Jackson v. State, 852 So.2d 941, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003),
review denied, 869 So.2d 540 (Fla.2004). An allegation of "use" of a firearm will not sustain an enhanced sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)(3), because a firearm may be used to inflict serious bodily injury without being discharged, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saintilus v. Jones
...courts have held that for enhanced sentencing, the charging document must allege that the firearm was discharged. See Rogers v. State, 875 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). 6. The Eleventh Circuit recognizes the "mailbox" rule in connection with the filing of a prisoner's petition for writ of h......
-
Robinson v. State
...informations. District courts continue to intermittently cite Whitehead v. State , 884 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), Rogers v. State , 875 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), Davis v. State , 884 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Daniel v. State , 935 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), as supporting......
-
Freudenberger v. State
...cannot be legally imposed unless the statutory elements are precisely charged in the information") (emphasis added); Rogers v. State, 875 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing life sentence imposed for discharge of a firearm with the infliction of great bodily harm under section 775.087(2......
-
Valera-Rodriguez v. State
...775.087(2), cannot be legally imposed unless the statutory elements are precisely charged in the information."); Rogers v. State, 875 So. 2d 769, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("An allegation of ‘use’ of a firearm will not sustain an enhanced sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)(3), because a fire......