JUSTO MONTEQUIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the sentence for displaying a firearm during a felony was improper when the underlying murder conviction was already enhanced due to a firearm.
The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm and displaying a firearm during a felony. He received a general sentence of fifteen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Enhancement For Firearm Use cases and more on FLexlaw
After considering the appellant’s petition for rehearing filed herein, we hereby substitute the following opinion in lieu of our original opinion. In all other respects the petition for rehearing is hereby denied.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged with murder in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. He was convicted of murder in the second degree with a firearm, and display of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to a general sentence of fifteen years as to counts one and two and to a three year minimum mandatory sentence on count one. The score sheet shows he was to be sentenced to fifteen years and three years minimum mandatory on count one with fifteen years on count two to run concurrently with count one.
On appeal he contends error in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), permitting the introduction into evidence of a 911 telephone call, and in the sentence, for displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony, when the second degree murder conviction was enhanced to a life felony because of the firearm. We find no error as to the first two contentions. Grant v. State, 474 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA1985); Ware v. State, 596 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA1992); compare Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA1984); Section 90.-404(2)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). We do find error as to the sentencing for displaying a firearm and do by this opinion hereby vacate said sentence pursuant to Cleveland v. State, 587 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1991); Prid gen v. State, 595 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA1992).
Affirmed as amended.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dukes v. State, 623 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…trial court should not read the justifiable and excusable homicide instructions. Under the circumstances, the defense counsel’s request constituted an explicit waiver. Based on Cleveland v. State, 587 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1991) and Montequin v. State, 605 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we find error in the defendant’s convictions and sentences for both second-degree murder with a firearm and possession of a firearm while in the commission of the same felony, when his second-degree murder conviction was enhanced…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Quinten L. Cleveland v. State, 587 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1991)
- Winford Lee Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Pearison Ware v. State, 596 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Grant v. State, 474 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Richards v. State, 595 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Pridgen v. State, 595 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)