From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Light v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 24, 1996
667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 94-01356.

January 24, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daniel L. Perry, Acting Circuit Judge.

Lawrence L. Scott, Tampa, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


The appellant, James L. Light, raises two points on appeal. We find merit only in his contention that the court erred in enhancing his sentence for aggravated assault. Therefore, we reverse solely for resentencing on this offense.

The appellant was convicted on various charges, including aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a firearm in violation of section 784.07(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). Under this statute, aggravated assault, a third-degree felony, is enhanced to a second-degree felony. The trial court additionally enhanced the conviction to a first-degree felony because the offense was committed with a firearm.

An offense cannot be enhanced for committing the offense with a firearm if a firearm is an essential element of the charge. Rodriguez v. State, 650 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Since using a firearm was an essential element of the offense, the trial court erred in enhancing the offense to a first-degree felony. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.


Summaries of

Light v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 24, 1996
667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Light v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES L. LIGHT, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 24, 1996

Citations

667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Light v. State

He appealed to this court. We affirmed his conviction but remanded for resentencing. Light v. State, 667…

Darst v. State

Other courts have followed the supreme court and have held that section 784.07 is an enhancement statute. See…