Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

636 So. 2d 844

Docket No. 94-239.

Staton v. State

Michael Lee STATON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-05-06

Relies on 520 So. 2d 260 - DuBoise v. State · 386 So. 2d 237 - Bryant v. State · 569 So. 2d 869 - Helmick v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-05-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2013

6 state decisions

20199420002010decided

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 →

¶1William F. Catto of Haag, Gaffney & Wilcox, P.A., Inverness, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3PETERSON, Judge.

¶4Michael Lee Staton appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct sentence. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to vacate the portion of his sentence which imposed a three year minimum mandatory term of incarceration because the information did not specifically charge the mandatory minimum provisions of section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1991).

¶5The information charged Staton with kidnapping and that:

... during the commission of said kidnapping, MICHAEL LEE STATON carried, displayed, used, threatened or attempted to use a weapon or firearm, to wit: A handgun-type firearm, in violation of Florida Statutes 787.01(1) and 775.087(1);

¶6Staton entered a plea of nolo contendere to this charge after the following transpired at the sentencing hearing:

THE COURT: Did you [sic] attorney tell you the maximum sentence you could receive for these charges?
DEFENDANT: Yes, he did, your Honor... .
THE COURT: What did he tell you?
DEFENDANT: It's a three year minimum mandatory, sir.

¶7In Bryant v. State, 386 So.2d 237, 241 (Fla. 1980), the supreme court ruled that "under Florida law ... there is no requirement *845 that a defendant be advised [in the charging document] of any mandatory minimum sentence." Notwithstanding, Staton urges that Bryant is not the current state of the law because of changes occurring in intervening years as reflected by such cases as Sullivan v. State, 562 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Bland v. Singletary, 601 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1988); Gordon v. State, 603 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Helmick v. State, 569 So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

¶8We find those cases inapplicable to the issue raised by Staton. Those cases involved a failure to charge an essential element of a crime. The instant case involves a penalty for the conviction of a felony committed with the employment of a firearm. The information alleged that Staton carried a firearm while he was committing the crime of kidnapping and that is all that is required in order to incur the penalty of a three year minimum mandatory if conviction results. Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, simply imposes a penalty for a conviction in the same manner as the penalties described in section 775.082, Florida Statutes. No requirement exists that would require the latter penalties to be described in an information and we see no reason to require the former to be included.

¶9The order denying Staton's motion to correct sentence is affirmed.

¶10AFFIRMED.

¶11HARRIS, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur.

/636/so2d/844 · .json · Public domain