Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant engaged in a violent confrontation that culminated in an attempted stabbing of the victim. The State charged the defendant by amended information with attempted second-degree murder but did not specify that a deadly weapon was used. The charging document merely stated that the defendant attempted to kill the victim “by stabbing” without alleging the use of a knife or any object likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

It is alleged that during the charge conference, the State requested jury instructions not only on the charged offense of attempted second-degree murder but also on the lesser-included offenses of attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon under section 784.045(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. The trial court agreed and gave the requested instructions, though it did not include aggravated battery based on great bodily harm under subsection (1)(a)(1).

It is reported that the jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 21 months in prison followed by six months of probation. The defendant appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the charging document and arguing that the State failed to allege all elements necessary to support the permissive lesser-included offense for which he was ultimately convicted.

Sufficiency of Charging Documents

On review, the court framed the central issue as whether a trial court may instruct the jury on a permissive lesser-included offense when the accusatory pleading does not allege all the elements of that offense. Florida law distinguishes between “category one” necessary lesser-included offenses, which are always encompassed in the greater offense, and “category two” permissive lesser-included offenses, which require that both the charging document and the trial evidence support the offense. The offense of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon is a category two offense with respect to attempted second-degree murder.

The court emphasized that due process mandates that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime not charged by the State. The purpose of the information is to give the defendant fair notice of the accusations to prepare a defense. The court held that the amended information’s vague reference to a “stabbing” was insufficient to allege the use of a deadly weapon as required under section 784.045(1)(a)(2). Notably, the information did not mention any object used, did not cite the applicable statute, and failed to indicate that the object was employed in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

As such, the court concluded that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and permitting a conviction on that basis. Because the statutory elements of the offense were not alleged in the information, the instruction was improper under the controlling authority of Watkins v. State and Von Deck v. State. The court, therefore, reversed the conviction and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment for simple battery, a lesser-included offense supported by the information and the evidence, and to resentence the defendant accordingly.

Consult a Skilled Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney Today

When facing serious criminal charges, particularly those involving violent offenses, it is critical to ensure that all aspects of your constitutional rights are protected throughout the proceedings. The experienced Sarasota violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are committed to providing vigorous advocacy for our clients and ensuring that the State is held to its constitutional obligations. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges, contact our Sarasota office at 941-462-1789 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation today.

The post Florida Appeals Court Reverses Conviction for Aggravated Battery appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

People charged with serious violent crimes often fear that they will be found guilty and sentenced to serve a lengthy term in prison, especially if they have prior convictions. There are limitations as to what sentences the courts can impose, however, and if they deviate from the sentencing scheme without just cause, there may be grounds for objecting to the sentence, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of attempted manslaughter and felony battery. If you are faced with accusations that you committed a violent crime, it is critical to speak to a Sarasota violent crime defense lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with attempted first-degree murder with a weapon and aggravated battery with a weapon. She was subsequently convicted of attempted manslaughter with a weapon, which was a lesser included offense of the murder charge, and felony battery, which was a lesser included offense of the battery crime. Following her sentencing, she appealed both her convictions and her sentence.

Grounds for Revising Sentences

On appeal, the defendant set forth numerous arguments. The court rejected the defendant’s first five arguments, affirming her convictions without discussion. The court then addressed the two remaining arguments the defendant asserted contesting her sentences.

The post Florida Court Explains Grounds for Revising Sentences appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Multiple acts of battery may be deemed a single criminal offense, or each act may be charged separately. However, regardless of how battery crimes are charged, the State must prove each element of the offense to get a conviction, which necessitates properly advising the jury on how to examine the evidence provided at trial. This was addressed in a recent Florida decision that looked at what constituted a proper jury instruction in a battery case. If you’ve been charged with battery, it’s a good idea to speak with an experienced Florida criminal defense lawyer about your options.

The Battery Allegations

According to reports, the defendant and the victim, who was his ex-girlfriend, had a verbal altercation. During the disagreement, the defendant snatched a lit cigarette from the victim’s hand, shoved her, and pushed her. With two or more battery convictions, he was charged with battery. During the trial, the defendant’s attorney objected to the verdict form since it did not differentiate between each act, and he said that a unanimous verdict was not required. The objection was overruled by the court, which determined that there was a continuous series of occurrences with no intervening actions. The defendant was found guilty and filed an appeal.

Charges in Florida Battery Cases

A trial court’s employment of a generic verdict form that does not assure a unanimous verdict is a reversible error, the court argued on appeal. A jury cannot condemn a person if a single count encompasses numerous independent offenses, even if they all violate the same statute. A jury must reach a unanimous decision on at least one of the acts described. The defendant in this case claimed that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to deliberate on three different incidents of battery although he was only charged with one.

The post Florida Court Discusses Battery Charges appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.