State v. Snowden
| Decision Date | 29 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65176,65176 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 488 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. James Michael SNOWDEN, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Mark C. Menser and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for respondent.
We granted the petition to review Snowden v. State, 449 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), because of conflict with Hawkins v. State, 436 So.2d 44 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Snowden was charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery. At the request of defense counsel the trial court instructed the jury that grand theft could be considered as an underlying felony of third-degree murder. The jury convicted Snowden of lesser included offenses on both counts of third-degree murder and grand theft. The district court of appeal reversed the conviction and set aside the sentence for grand theft on the authority of Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983), which holds that there cannot be separate convictions and sentences for two or more offenses when only one crime has been committed.
The state argues that grand theft, as the underlying felony of third-degree murder, is not a lesser included offense. We agree and have recently put this issue to rest in State v. Enmund, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla.1985), and Vause v. State, 476 So.2d 141 (Fla.1985). * The decision under review is therefore quashed with directions to affirm Snowden's conviction of and sentence for grand theft.
It is so ordered.
* It should also be noted for future reference that section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1983), chapter 83-156, section 1, Laws of Florida, now incorporates the rule from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). This section now clearly expresses legislative intent that there be separate convictions and sentences for separate criminal offenses "if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial." Thus, by statutory definition, there is no lesser included offense when each offense contains a statutory element that the other does not have. Conversely, when each statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. State
...following his initial felony conviction. See Snowden v. State, 449 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), quashed on other grounds, 476 So.2d 191 (Fla.1985). Where habitualization was based upon misdemeanors, it was at least implicit in the language "twice previously convicted" that the offens......
-
King v. State, 91-00036
...1989), review dismissed, 560 So.2d 235 (Fla.1990); Snowden v. State, 449 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), quashed on other grounds, 476 So.2d 191 (Fla.1985); Shead v. State, 367 So.2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA We conclude now, however, that recent amendments to section 775.084, particularly those effe......
-
State v. Rodriquez
...the outdated Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. See footnote to State v. Snowden, 476 So.2d 191 (Fla.1985). OVERTON, Justice, I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla.1984). In my view pe......
-
Barton v. State, 85-1179
...we vacate the sentence and conviction for aggravated battery. 476 So.2d at 177. Curiously, the supreme court had issued State v. Snowden, 476 So.2d 191 (Fla.1985), the day before Mills, noting in the opinion the passage of the amendment to section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1983), which ......