WILLIAM COON, 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.
William Coon was convicted of robbery under Florida Statutes § 812.13(2)(a), which requires use of a deadly weapon. The verdict form failed to specify whether a deadly weapon was involved, only that the defendant threatened to use a weapon. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the entire record disclosed the charged offense and no prejudicial error occurred.
The judgment and conviction are affirmed. Although the verdict form failed to provide a specific notation for finding a deadly weapon, the entire record—including the properly worded information charging the defendant under § 812.13(2)(a) and the jury's definite finding that the defendant threatened to use a weapon—sufficiently supports the conviction without prejudicial error.
[1] A judgment and sentence will not be vitiated by an erroneous recital of the offense if the entire record fully discloses the offense for which the accused was indicted, t…
[2] A jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of robbery as charged in the information is sufficient to support a judgment and sentence, even if the verdict form lacks a spec…
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 verdict properly found the defendant "As to Robbery as charged in the Information: GUILTY."”
Establishes that the jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge as properly stated in the information, supporting the conviction despite the defective verdict form notation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoon was charged with robbery by force, violence, assault or putting in fear, taking cash from Sam Kraus, and carrying a deadly weapon (a knife) durin…
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 Robbery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The single point presented on this appeal urges that the verdict does not support the judgment rendered in that it shows that the defendant was found guilty of robbery by threats to use a weapon rather than a deadly weapon as described in Section 812.-13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The information properly charged the defendant, pursuant to Section 812.13(2)(a), under which he was sentenced.1 The verdict properly found the defendant “As to Robbery as charged in the Information: GUILTY.” The only difficulty arises because at the charge conference, it was agreed that a notation should be placed at the bottom of the verdict form by which the jury could determine whether or not a weapon was used. No place was provided in the notation for a finding of a deadly weapon. The jury did, however, definitely find that the defendant threatened to use a weapon.2 No motion for new trial was made upon the basis of the claimed impropriety in the form of the verdict. We conclude that no prejudicial error has been shown and that the judgment and sentence must be affirmed on the basis of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Hambrick v. State, 80 Fla. 672, 86 So. 623, 624 (1920), where the court said:
“The entire record may be looked to in ascertaining the offense for which the accused is sentenced, and an erroneous recital or statement of the offense by the court in pronouncing sentence, or of the clerk in recording in the minutes of the proceedings kept by him the judgment imposed, will not vitiate the judgment when the record fully discloses the offense for which the accused was indicted, tried, and convicted.”
Affirmed.
. The material portion of the information reads as follows:
“ . . . did unlawfully by force, violence, assault or putting in fear, take certain property, to-wit: CASH, GOOD AND LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, said property being the subject of larceny and of the value of less than ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) the property of SAM KRAUS, as owner or custodian, from the person or custody of SAM KRAUS, and in the course of committing said Robbery, carried a deadly weapon, to-wit: A KNIFE, in violation of 812.13 Florida Statutes.”
. “Should you find the defendant guilty of robbery it will be necessary for you to find in your verdict whether it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant during the commission of said crime, did:
(Carry) (Display) (Use) (Threaten to use) or (Attempt to use) any (Weapon).
Yes X No_