Lesser Included Offense

3,833 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Johnson v. State
  409 So. 2d 1158· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-02-16 ·cited 4×
  Willie James Johnson appealed his conviction and sentencing, challenging both the propriety of sentencing by a substitute judge and the conviction on two counts of aggravated assault. The Florida appellate court reversed the sentencing due to improper substitution of judges and r
• Wilson v. Meyer
  665 F.2d 118· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The retrial of a defendant for felony murder after the felony murder count was nolle prossed violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Bruns v. State
  408 So. 2d 228· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-08-26 ·cited 4×
  Gary Bruns was convicted of robbery of property valued under $100, but the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the necessarily included offense of petit larceny. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that such refusal constitutes reversible per
• In the Interest of R. R.
  397 So. 2d 1051· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-05-13 ·cited 4×
• Stephens v. State
  396 So. 2d 741· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on robbery without a weapon, as it was not a necessarily included offense one step removed from robbery with a firearm.
• Taylor v. State
  391 So. 2d 788· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in imposing concurrent sentences for aggravated assault when the assault was a lesser included offense of armed robbery.
• Pharr v. Israel
  629 F.2d 1278· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's failure to object to jury instructions at trial constituted a waiver of his federal claims, barring federal habeas corpus review under Wainwright v. Sykes.
• Smith v. State
  383 So. 2d 959· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-05-21 ·cited 4×
  A prosecutor has discretion to charge a defendant under a general criminal statute even if a more specific statute also applies, and a probation condition to 'live honorably' is impermissibly vague.
• LEE v. State
  384 So. 2d 35· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-04-30 ·cited 4×
• Haynes v. State
  377 So. 2d 771· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-12-05 ·cited 4×
  Court affirmed armed robbery conviction but reversed grand larceny conviction because larceny is a necessarily included offense in robbery and a defendant cannot be convicted of both arising from the same transaction.
• Roberts v. State
  374 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-01 ·cited 4×
  Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for aggravated assault, armed burglary, and firearm display, rejecting defendant's claim of fundamental error regarding the information's sufficiency and holding that firearm display is not a lesser included offense of armed burglary.
• United States v. Larsen
  596 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the specific provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1852 do not preclude prosecution under the more general provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 641 when the elements of proof differ.
• Simmons v. State
  369 So. 2d 609· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-09-27 ·cited 4×
  Affirmed convictions for sexual battery and petit larceny, but reversed and remanded to correct the written judgment to conform to the jury verdict and oral pronouncement regarding the use of a deadly weapon and disposition of Count II.
• Solomon Harris v. State
  358 So. 2d 858· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-05-16 ·cited 4×
  Appellant's conviction for both possession and delivery of heroin in a single transaction was error; only the higher offense (delivery) could be sentenced under pre-statute law, so the possession sentence was set aside.
• Gifford v. State
  355 So. 2d 436· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-01-31 ·cited 4×
  Lewis C. Gifford was convicted of sexual battery and breaking and entering, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed due to improper prosecutorial comment on his right to remain silent during cross-examination and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the les
• Sharp v. State
  353 So. 2d 642· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-12-27 ·cited 4×
  Conviction for robbery with a weapon reversed because trial court failed to instruct jury on lesser-included offense of simple assault, as required by Lomax v. State.
• Brice v. State
  348 So. 2d 636· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-07-29 ·cited 4×
  Appellant's conviction for sexual battery was reversed because the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on assault and battery as necessarily lesser included offenses when requested by the defendant.
• United States v. Wheeler
  545 F.2d 1255· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-02 ·cited 4×
  Indian tribal courts and federal district courts are not arms of separate sovereigns, thus an individual cannot be tried for the same offense in both. The Double Jeopardy Clause was violated.
• United States v. Hendrix
  542 F.2d 879· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's instruction on the presumption of sanity, while perhaps not preferable, did not constitute plain error requiring reversal in the absence of an objection, as the jury was unequivocally instructed that the government bore the burden of proving
• United States v. Flint
  534 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the trial court did not err in refusing proposed voir dire questions, and did not err in refusing a lesser-included offense instruction.
• Burt v. State
  330 So. 2d 472· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-04-20 ·cited 4×
  Anthony Gernell Burt was convicted of attempted breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and carrying a concealed firearm. The trial court sentenced him to five years on each count, but the appellate court held that because the jury was instructed the maximum pen
• Young v. State
  330 So. 2d 532· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-04-20 ·cited 4×
  Robert Lee Young was convicted of robbery after a trial in which the court improperly limited cross-examination of an investigator and refused to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding both rulings constituted reversible error
• United States v. Blankenship
  548 F.2d 1118· 4th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape, nor did it err in failing to advise the defendant of his statutory right to two attorneys in a capital case, and that the defenda
• United States v. Madden
  525 F.2d 972· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense because the defendant failed to distinctly state the grounds for his objection as required by Rule 30.
• Stephens v. State
  324 So. 2d 190· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-12-23 ·cited 4×
  John Stephens was convicted of delivering worthless checks in his personal capacity, but the evidence proved only that the corporation he chaired had insufficient funds, not that Stephens personally lacked funds. The court reversed the conviction due to a fatal variance between t
• Windle Tyler Turner v. State
  314 So. 2d 183· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-06-16 ·cited 4×
  Turner was convicted of manslaughter for striking a seven-month-old baby on the head with a plastic nursing bottle, resulting in the baby's death. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial based on Miranda violations and the trial c
• Risebrough v. State
  313 So. 2d 48· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-05-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the essential element of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle constituted reversible error.
• In re Transition Rule 20: Traffic Court Rules 6.010
  311 So. 2d 665· Fla.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court amended twelve Traffic Court Rules pursuant to the Traffic Court Review Committee's recommendations following implementation of the Florida Uniform Disposition of Traffic Infractions Act. The amendments clarified procedural rules for traffic cases in mun
• Tex Williams v. State
  309 So. 2d 630· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-03-18 ·cited 4×
  Affirmed conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny; testimony that the defendant broke into office premises used and occupied by the named party satisfied the ownership requirement.
• Nordone v. State
  307 So. 2d 907· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a presentence investigation is mandatory for a first felony offense, and failure to order one requires resentencing.
• Augenblick v. The United States
  509 F.2d 1157· Ct. Cl.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the military courts had jurisdiction to try Commander Augenblick because his offense had a "service connection," despite it occurring off-base and in civilian clothes.
• JOE v. United States
  510 F.2d 1038· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The Supreme Court's decision in Keeble, which held that federal courts have jurisdiction to instruct on non-enumerated lesser included offenses under the Major Crimes Act, applies retroactively to cases like this one where the conviction was affirmed based on a prior, now-overrul
• Josey v. State
  301 So. 2d 489· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-10-16 ·cited 4×
  James William Josey appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, claiming he was deprived of compulsory process for witnesses and a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. The appellate court finds that these issues cannot be resolved on appeal and must be
• United States v. Scriber
  499 F.2d 1041· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that in-court identifications were based on a source independent of tainted lineups and missing photographs, as the government failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of such independence.
• Langley v. State
  292 So. 2d 613· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-04-11 ·cited 4×
  Leonard Langley appealed his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, larceny of firearms, and possession of burglary tools. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction but partially reversed the sentencing, vacating the consecutive
• Edsel Griffin v. State
  286 So. 2d 220· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-12-07 ·cited 4×
• Barber v. State
  286 So. 2d 23· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-11-20 ·cited 4×
  Defendants Edward and Charles Barber were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny at two locations. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support grand larceny convictions and that
• Leola Crum v. State
  281 So. 2d 368· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-15 ·cited 4×
  Leola Crum appeals her conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, challenging the admission of her own exculpatory statement made without Miranda warnings and the exculpatory statements of her co-defendants. The court affirms, holding that Crum was
• United States v. Mondaine
  481 F.2d 617· 8th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's determination of credibility is final, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Bryan v. State
  279 So. 2d 332· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-06-08 ·cited 4×
  Florida appellate court affirmed robbery conviction despite trial court's failure to instruct jury on lesser included offense of simple assault, finding the error harmless in light of substantial evidence supporting the verdict.
• Foster v. State
  276 So. 2d 512· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-04-12 ·cited 4×
  Willie Foster appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and possession of burglary tools. The Florida appellate court affirmed his conviction and concurrent sentences, holding that these offenses are distinct crimes not facets of the same tra
• Falagan v. State
  267 So. 2d 109· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-10-04 ·cited 4×
  Court affirmed denial of post-conviction motion to vacate armed robbery conviction where appellant's claim about jury instructions on lesser-included offense was barred as a matter properly raised on direct appeal.
• Logan v. State
  264 So. 2d 461· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-07-14 ·cited 4×
  Appellant's conviction for robbery was affirmed where the trial court properly denied suppression of evidence and statements obtained after arrest, and any error in refusing to instruct on lesser included offenses was harmless because the jury convicted on the charged offense.
• Balletti v. State
  261 So. 2d 510· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-05-02 ·cited 4×
  Arthur Balletti, a private investigator hired by Ferdie Pacheco, was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny after photographing Pacheco's estranged wife with another man. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was i
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Duvergee
  456 F.2d 1271· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-06 ·cited 4×
  A defendant cannot be convicted of assault for resisting an unlawful arrest if they use unreasonable force, as such force negates any claim of self-defense or lawful resistance.
• Rodriguez v. State
  257 So. 2d 81· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-01-21 ·cited 4×
  Rodriguez was convicted of the felony offense of conducting a lottery (Bolita), but the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included misdemeanor offense of possession of lottery paraphernalia. The court reversed, holding that when evidence supports a lesser inc
• United States v. JOE
  452 F.2d 653· 10th Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1153 does not incorporate state law definitions of lesser included offenses beyond the specific offenses enumerated in the statute. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on state-defined lesser included offenses.
• State v. Arlander Williams
  254 So. 2d 798· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-11-04 ·cited 4×
  An acquittal on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder does not, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel or the single transaction concept, bar a subsequent prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm arising from the same incident.
• Macio Bernard Simpson v. State
  237 So. 2d 341· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-05-14 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Heard
  420 F.2d 628· D.C. Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that when a jury is erroneously allowed to convict on both carnal knowledge and indecent liberties, and the defense did not request specific jury instructions, the conviction for the lesser offense (indecent liberties) should be vacated.