Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

410 So. 2d 944

Docket No. XX-280.

Webb v. State

Mallory WEBB, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 4, 1982.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1982.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-02-04

Relies on Gans v. Tarlton · City of Miami Beach v. Sargeant · Harper v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-02-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2003

18 state decisions

90198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*945 Michael Allen, Public Defender, Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3WENTWORTH, Judge.

¶4Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction of third degree felony murder and a sentence which was enhanced pursuant to § 775.087(1), Florida Statutes. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but reverse the enhanced sentence since § 775.087(1) is expressly inapplicable when "the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element" of the substantive offense.

¶5Although the use of a weapon is not an essential element of the substantive offense of felony murder in all cases, it is an essential element of the felony murder offense charged and proved in this case. Appellant's conviction was predicated upon an underlying felony of either aggravated assault or aggravated battery,[1] established by proof of an assault/battery involving the use of a firearm. See §§ 784.021(1)(a) and 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The use of a weapon or a firearm is an essential element of both of these offenses; such an aggravated assault/battery is already an "enhanced penalty offense, and § 775.087(1) may not be applied to enhance the sentence for these offenses. See Knight v. State,374 So.2d 1065 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), fn. 2, and Williams v. State,358 So.2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Since it was necessary to prove such an aggravated assault/battery in order to establish the felony murder in this case, the elements of the underlying offense were essential to this felony murder conviction, and § 775.087(1) is therefore inapplicable. See Harper v. State,386 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (concurring opinion).

¶6Accordingly, appellant's sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing.

¶7ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶8[1] The jury was instructed that the possible underlying felonies were aggravated assault, to wit: assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated battery, to wit: battery involving the use of a deadly weapon. The deadly weapon referred to was appellant's firearm.

/410/so2d/944 · .json · Public domain