Grant v. State
138 So. 3d 1079
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Grant was convicted after a jury trial of attempted armed robbery while wearing a mask and carrying a firearm and of possession of a firearm with an altered serial number.
- The trial court imposed 15 years’ imprisonment with a 10-year mandatory minimum under 775.087(2) on the attempted robbery count and time served on the other count.
- The offense arose from Grant’s conduct outside a jewelry store on November 17, 2010, where he forcefully tried to enter while hooded, masked, and gloved, then fled when entry failed.
- Detectives later stopped Grant’s car; a handgun was found on the passenger seat within reach, and items including a hooded sweatshirt and gloves were recovered.
- Grant challenged the judgment of acquittal on intent, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence to show he ‘carried’ a firearm; the State sought to uphold the charge and the sentence.
- The court affirmed the robbery conviction in part, reversed the mandatory minimum, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient intent to commit robbery? | Grant | Grant | Evidence supported intent; no JMOL reversed |
| Did Grant carry a firearm during the attempted robbery? | State | Grant | Yes, during flight under 812.13(3)(a) |
| Was the ten-year mandatory minimum under 775.087(2) applicable? | State | Grant | Reverse and remand for resentencing; not actually possessed during offense as required |
Key Cases Cited
- Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1997) (requires proof of intent to deprive via conduct and circumstances)
- Parker v. State, 570 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (possession during flight supports enhancement)
- Rose v. State, 68 So.3d 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (distinguishes situations with multiple possible intents)
- Arnett v. State, 128 So.3d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (distinguishes actual possession for mandatory minimum)
- Mercer v. State, 347 So.2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (outlines required overt act in attempt cases)
- Wallace v. State, 929 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (distinguishes possession theories for minimums)
- Hough v. State, 448 So.2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (actual possession requirement for minimums)
- Terry v. State, 14 So.3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (due process concerns with charges)
- Castillo v. State, 929 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (due process and charging precision)