Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

636 So. 2d 599

Docket No. 93-1404.

Thompson v. State

Kenny M. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 20, 1994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-05-20

Relies on 634 So. 2d 618 - Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Herre · 573 So. 2d 813 - Lareau v. State · Gonzalez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-05-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2016

5 state decisions

30199420002010decided

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 →

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Steven J. Guardiano, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The jury found appellant guilty of "aggravated battery causing great bodily harm with a weapon."[1] We affirm on the authority of Lareau v. State,573 So.2d 813, 815 (Fla. 1991)[2] ("section 775.087(1) permits reclassification and the consequential enhancement of penalties for the crime of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, section 784.045(1)(a), *600 when a weapon is used to commit the crime."); Hayward v. State,590 So.2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); cf. Randolph v. State,591 So.2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied,634 So.2d 626 (Fla. Jan. 24, 1994).

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶7[1] The verdict form provided, inter alia, three alternatives of aggravated battery that could have been chosen by the jury including the one stated above, aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, and aggravated battery with a weapon. The jury chose the one they deemed to be supported by the facts and which bears a penalty of a felony of the first degree.

¶8[2] We are troubled by the failure of appellant's counsel to cite in his brief Lareau or Gonzalez v. State,585 So.2d 932 (Fla. 1991). These two supreme court cases would have avoided this sole issue on appeal. The state's answer brief cited Lareau, but appellant filed no reply brief to concede or distinguish that authority.

/636/so2d/599 · .json · Public domain