Skip to main content

Arnett v. State

Citations

  • 128 So. 3d 87
  • 2013 WL 4997480
  • 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14702

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that 775.087 enhancement was improper where the grounds for enhancement were not clearly charged in the information, and a jury finding that the appellant actually possessed a firearm does not cure the charging defect
  • holding that in order for a defendant’s sentence to be enhanced under the 10-20-Life statute, the jury must make factual findings supporting the enhancement, and the State must specifically allege the grounds for enhancement in the charging document
  • holding that the three-year minimum term mandated by the 10-20-Life statute could not be legally imposed because the information did not charge that Arnett actually possessed the firearm and the jury’s finding of actual possession did not cure the charging defect
  • reversing and remanding the appellant’s sentence with directions to strike his mandatory minimum firearm enhancement sentence because a defendant’s sentence may not be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087(2
  • imposition of mandatory minimum under § 775.087(2)(a) was illegal because defendant was not charged with “actual possession” of a firearm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Benton, Nortwick, Padovano

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.