Gentile v. State
87 So. 3d 55
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gentile filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus; petition dismissed and sanctions imposed for abusive filings.
- Defendant bludgeoned his wife with a hammer in 1999, was convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to life; direct appeal affirmed.
- Petitioner repeatedly claimed improper reclassification from a first-degree felony to a life felony under 775.087(1) due to lack of a jury finding of a deadly weapon; repeatedly rejected.
- Prior cases in this district reaffirmed the meritless nature of the claim and warned of sanctions for continued raising of the issue.
- In the instant case, petitioner again argues the verdict form did not specifically find use of a deadly weapon; the information charged deadly weapon use and 775.087(1).
- Court holds the verdict demonstrates a clear finding of use of a deadly weapon and that the reclassification was proper; applying harmless error standards and imposing sanctions against further filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does lack of a specific jury finding invalidate reclassification under 775.087(1)? | Gentile argues no specific finding voids reclassification. | Gentile relies on Tripp/Overfelt; but statute permits clear finding. | Reclassification valid; clear finding shown by verdict and information. |
| Is the verdict form insufficient to show deadly weapon use for reclassification? | Gentile contends no explicit weapon-use finding. | Information and verdict imply weapon use; no error. | No improper reclassification; verdict supports the finding. |
| Is the Apprendi concern harmless and are sanctions appropriate? | Argues Apprendi violation renders error reversible. | Error is harmless due to overwhelming evidence of weapon use; sanctions warranted. | Harmless error; sanctions imposed for abuse of postconviction procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Iseley, 944 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2006) (clear jury finding suffices for reclassification when identified in verdict)
- State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1997) (requires clear jury finding for enhancement)
- State v. Tucker, 726 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1999) (overrules need for explicit interrogatories in some cases)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (harmless error under Recuenco standard)
- State v. Sanders, 944 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2006) (application of reclassification may be via specific verdict or identified crime)
- Johnson v. State, 720 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1998) (reclassification proper when offense as charged includes deadly weapon)
- Amos v. State, 833 So.2d 841 (Fla. 2002) (verdicts reflecting charged conduct support reclassification)
- Hunter v. State, 828 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (support for reclassification based on as-charged conduct)
- Whitehead v. State, 446 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1984) (discussion of weapon-use requirement)
- Maglio v. State, 918 So.2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reclassification evidence sufficiency)