MIKAEL T. CUYLER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Mikael Cuyler was convicted by jury of murder, armed robbery, and two counts of armed kidnapping. The appellate court affirmed all convictions but reversed the sentences on robbery and kidnapping convictions, finding the trial court improperly departed from sentencing guidelines without written justification.
The court affirmed the convictions on all counts, including the armed kidnapping convictions, because the defendant's actions were not merely incidental to the murder and robbery. However, the court reversed the sentences imposed on the robbery and kidnapping convictions because the trial court failed to provide written reasons justifying its departure from the sentencing guidelines.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal when the state presents evidence that the defendant's actions were not merely incidental to the c…
[2] A trial court errs by departing from sentencing guidelines without providing written reasons justifying the departure.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state presented evidence which indicated that the defendant's actions of ordering a customer and delivery person, both of whom arrived at the crime scene after the murder was committed, to enter and remain in the store where the murder and robbery were committed were not merely incidental to the commission of the murder and armed robbery”
Establishes the basis for affirming the armed kidnapping convictions—that the defendant's conduct constituted separate crimes beyond the murder and robbery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Cuyler committed murder and armed robbery at a store. After the murder was committed, he ordered a customer and delivery person who arrived …
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 Armed Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, J.
Mikael Cuyler (defendant) appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crimes of murder,1 armed robbery,2 and armed kidnapping.3 We affirm the defendant’s convictions, but reverse portions of his sentences and remand for re-sentencing.
The defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal on two counts of armed kidnapping. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because the state presented evidence which indicated that the defendant’s actions of ordering a customer and delivery person, both of whom arrived at the crime scene after the murder was committed, to enter and remain in the store where the murder and robbery were committed were not merely incidental to the commission of the murder and armed robbery. See Berry v. State, 668 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1996); see also Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1983); Garvin v. State, 685 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
The defendant next argues that, in sentencing him on his robbery and kidnapping convictions, the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines without providing written reasons justifying the departure. We agree.
The defendant was convicted of committing murder, armed robbery, and two counts of armed kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory term of life imprisonment on the murder conviction. As for the remaining felonies, the defendant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet provided for an upward range of 266.7 months’ imprisonment. The trial court departed from the guidelines and imposed a term of life imprisonment on each count. Over the defendant’s objection, the trial court failed to set forth any reasons to justify departure. This failure constitutes reversible error. See Robertson v. State, 611 So. 2d 1228 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we must vacate the sentences imposed on the robbery and kidnapping convictions and remand this matter for re-sentencing.
Judgments AFFIRMED; sentences AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part; cause REMANDED for re-sentencing.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 782.04, Fla. Stat. (1995). '
. § 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). .
.§ 787.01, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Biggs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…of kidnaping where defendant forced employees outside of store at gunpoint, put them into restroom at rear, told them to stay inside, yelled “get back in ...” when manager peeked out, and victims obeyed for another thirty seconds); Cuyler v. State, 733 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(ordering customer and delivery person who arrived at a murder/robbery crime scene to enter and remain in store where crimes were committed was not merely incidental to commission of these crimes); Brown v. State, 727 So. 2d 337 (…
Authorities Cited
- Germaine Berry v. State, 668 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1996)
- Lavarity Robertson v. State, 611 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1993)
- Garvin v. State, 685 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)