Figueroa v. State
84 So. 3d 1158
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- In 1998 Figueroa was charged by information with Robbery with a firearm and first-degree grand theft; the body referenced robbery with use of force in violation of armed-robbery statutes.
- Figueroa was convicted by jury of robbery with a firearm and sentenced as an HVFO to life with a fifteen-year minimum.
- The judgment convicted him of robbery with a deadly weapon or firearm under 812.13, but did not mention 775.087.
- Figueroa argued the information failed to allege a firearm was possessed, making the sentence illegal.
- The court treated the motion as a habeas petition, granted relief, and ordered an amended judgment reflecting a second-degree felony conviction with a 30-year cap and 10-year minimum, resentencing as HVFO; vacated related sanctions.
- The opinion notes the claim is a fundamental defect and that manifest injustice supports habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the information legally defective? | Figueroa argues failure to charge firearm element. | State contends reference to 775.087 cures defect or is not essential to charge. | Information defective; cannot support armed-robbery conviction. |
| Can a reference to 775.087 cure a fundamental defect in elements charged? | Reference does not cure missing firearm element. | Reference in body to 775.087 supports reclassification. | Reclassification under 775.087 inappropriate when essential element of armed robbery is missing. |
| Is the conviction and sentence illegal due to an uncharged element? | Conviction for robbery with firearm; element not charged. | Statutory references in charging document justify conviction. | Conviction and sentence for uncharged element invalid; habeas relief appropriate. |
| May the court grant habeas relief to correct manifest injustice when error was fundamental? | Relief warranted to rectify flawed conviction and sentence. | Habeas not applicable or limited in this posture. | Relief granted; amended judgment and resentencing ordered with proper offense and HVFO terms. |
| What is the proper remedy and scope of resentencing? | Amend to correct defense and HVFO framework. | Follow statutory maximum for second-degree felony. | Amended judgment to second-degree felony, resentenced to ≤30 years with 10-year mandatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troyer v. State, 610 So.2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (body vs heading governs charged offense)
- Keesee v. State, 204 So.2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) (interpretation of charging documents)
- Franke v. State, 997 So.2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (essential elements and firearm element cannot be reclassified)
- State v. Tripp, 642 So.2d 728 (Fla.1994) (reclassification in armed robbery context)
- Ruth v. State, 949 So.2d 288 (Fla.1st DCA 2007) (reclassification limits under 775.087(1))
- DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260 (Fla.1988) (charging element sufficiency and fundamental error rule)
- Jaimes v. State, 51 So.3d 445 (Fla.2010) (due process requirement to charge essential elements)
- Price v. State, 995 So.2d 401 (Fla.2008) (failure to allege essential element may be habeas issue)
- Harris v. State, 76 So.3d 1080 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (due process concerns with uncharged crimes)
- Pena v. State, 829 So.2d 289 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (fundamental error in charging document)
- McKenzie v. State, 31 So.3d 275 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (distinguishing firearm possession vs discharge and sentencing)
- Miller v. State, 988 So.2d 138 (Fla.1st DCA 2008) (manifest injustice in collateral relief context)
- Stephens v. State, 974 So.2d 455 (Fla.2d DCA 2008) (exception to finality for manifest injustice in habeas)