State v. Sykes, s. 60795
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | BOYD; ALDERMAN; McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS; McDONALD; ADKINS |
| Citation | 434 So.2d 325 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. George Washington SYKES, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | Nos. 60795,60796,s. 60795 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1983 |
Page 325
v.
George Washington SYKES, Respondent.
Page 326
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Melanie Ann Hines, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for respondent.
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before the Court on petition for review of a decision of the district court of appeal, Sykes v. State, 397 So.2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The decision below passed upon a question which the district court certified to be of great public importance, thus giving this Court jurisdiction to review the case. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Respondent was charged with the crime of grand theft in the second degree. 1 The trial judge, without objection by the defendant, instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty of attempted second-degree grand theft. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of attempted second-degree grand theft, and respondent was adjudged guilty thereof and sentenced. On appeal, respondent argued that there was no such offense as attempted second-degree grand theft, so that the conviction could not stand. He argued further that the lack of objection did not preclude review of his claims, since fundamental error was involved and that the verdict constituted an acquittal on the accusation of second-degree grand theft, requiring his discharge. The district court reluctantly found all of respondent's contentions to be correct but certified the following question:
When a trial court, following what it believes to be the requirements of the law, charges the jury on attempted grand theft under Sections 777.04(1) and 812.014, Florida Statutes, without objection, and the jury returns a verdict of guilty of attempted grand theft based upon evidence supporting a conviction for that offense, notwithstanding that the evidence would also support a conviction of grant theft, is the defendant entitled to be discharged?
397 So.2d at 996. We answer the question in the negative. We agree with the district court that there is no such crime as attempted second-degree grand theft and that respondent's conviction thereof cannot stand. We also agree that such a defective verdict and judgment may be challenged on appeal even though there was no objection at trial. We also hold, however, that the state may re-try the respondent because second-degree grand theft in itself includes an "attempt" to commit second-degree grand theft.
Respondent was charged with second-degree grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1977). The statute in effect at the time of alleged offense provided: 2
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent:
(a) To deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom.
(b) To appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto.
Page 327
(2)(a) If the property stolen is of the value of $20,000 or more, the offender shall be guilty of grand theft in the first degree, punishable as a felony of the second degree, as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084.
(b) It is grand theft of the second degree and a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084, if the property stolen is:
1. Valued at $100 or more, but less than $20,000.
2. A will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument.
3. A firearm.
4. A motor vehicle.
5. Any member of the genus Bos (cattle) or the genus Equus (horse), or any hybrid of the specified genera.
6. Any fire extinguisher.
(c) Theft of any property not specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) is petit theft and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Upon a second conviction for petit theft, the offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Upon a third or subsequent conviction for petit theft, the offender shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torrence v. State, No. 80-470
...of innocence."); State v. Rozier, and State v. Young, 436 So.2d 73 (Fla.1983); State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla.1983); State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); State v. Black, 385 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1980); State v. Dye, 346 So.2d 538 (Fla.1977); Perkin......
-
Nurse v. State, No. 93-2027
...v. State, 206 So.2d at 381. The best-known current example is the theft statute. See Sec. 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1991); State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325, 327 (Fla.1983) (theft "is fully proved when an attempt, along with the requisite intent, is As a general rule, however, the attempt statute,......
-
State v. Delgado, No. 71969-1.
...authority of the state, providing notice through published laws. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1081 (6th ed.1990); see also State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983). An offense is a breach of moral or social conduct or an infraction of law. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1566 (1993).......
-
Flarity v. State, No. 87-337
...to the preservation of innocence."); State v. Rozier, 436 So.2d 73 (Fla.1983); State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla.1983); State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); State v. Black, 385 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1980); State v. Dye, 346 So.2d 538 (Fla.1977); Perkin......
-
Nurse v. State, 93-2027
...v. State, 206 So.2d at 381. The best-known current example is the theft statute. See Sec. 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1991); State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325, 327 (Fla.1983) (theft "is fully proved when an attempt, along with the requisite intent, is As a general rule, however, the attempt statute,......
-
Torrence v. State, 80-470
...of innocence."); State v. Rozier, and State v. Young, 436 So.2d 73 (Fla.1983); State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla.1983); State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); State v. Black, 385 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1980); State v. Dye, 346 So.2d 538 (Fla.1977); Perkin......
-
State v. Delgado, 71969-1.
...authority of the state, providing notice through published laws. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1081 (6th ed.1990); see also State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983). An offense is a breach of moral or social conduct or an infraction of law. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1566 (1993).......
-
Flarity v. State, 87-337
...to the preservation of innocence."); State v. Rozier, 436 So.2d 73 (Fla.1983); State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla.1983); State v. Sykes, 434 So.2d 325 (Fla.1983); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); State v. Black, 385 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1980); State v. Dye, 346 So.2d 538 (Fla.1977); Perkin......