Ivory Lee Robinson v. State of Florida
215 So. 3d 1262
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2003 Robinson was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon; the Amended Information referenced the "10-20-Life" reclassification statute, section 775.087, Fla. Stat.
- The victim testified he was shot in the stomach; the jury convicted on all counts and answered special interrogatories, including that Robinson possessed and discharged a firearm and was in actual possession of a firearm.
- Robinson received a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence under the 10-20-Life law and this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Over a decade later Robinson filed a rule 3.800(a) motion asserting (1) a technical defect because the Amended Information alleged only "bodily harm" (not the statutory phrase "great bodily harm") and (2) a substantive Apprendi claim that the jury did not find the "great bodily harm" factor beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court denied relief; the First DCA affirmed, holding the technical-defect claim was waived and the substantive claim either was not shown to be fundamental error or was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of the precise phrase "great bodily harm" in the Amended Information is an "illegal sentence" under rule 3.800(a) (technical-defect) | The Information failed to precisely track §775.087 by alleging only "bodily harm," so the mandatory minimum is invalid per Apprendi | The charging language plus statutory citation and trial evidence gave adequate notice; technical pleading defects must be preserved at trial and are not per se illegal under rule 3.800(a) | Waived and not cognizable on rule 3.800(a); technical-defect claim denied |
| Whether failure to submit or charge the Apprendi factor (great bodily harm) deprived Robinson of a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt (substantive-defect) | The great-bodily-harm factor was never charged and not proved to the jury as required by Apprendi, so reclassification and mandatory minimum are invalid | The jury’s verdict and special interrogatories, together with trial testimony and statutory citation, supply a clear finding; any omission is subject to harmless-error review and not fundamental here | No fundamental error shown; any constitutional error was harmless; claim denied |
| Whether a jury verdict can "cure" an Apprendi-type pleading deficiency in a state information | N/A (Robinson argued pleadings must precisely track statute) | State: jury verdict, special interrogatories, and trial record can satisfy Apprendi requirements despite pleading imprecision | Jury findings and record cured the alleged pleading deficiency in this case |
| Whether rule 3.800(a) is a proper vehicle for these Apprendi challenges more than two years after finality | N/A (Robinson invoked 3.800(a)) | State: technical claims must be preserved earlier; substantive Apprendi claims under rule 3.800(a) must show fundamental illegality on the record | Rule 3.800(a) not available to rescue unpreserved technical-defect claims; substantive claim failed or was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (court must treat certain sentencing factors as elements for Sixth Amendment purposes)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (Apprendi line applied to state sentencing procedure)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (fact that increases statutory minimum must be found by jury)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (defect in indictment may be cured by the record and verdict)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (failure to submit sentencing factor to jury is subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Florida Supreme Court: unconstitutionally enhanced upward departures are illegal under rule 3.800(a))
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Recuenco supersedes pre-Apprendi holdings; Apprendi-type errors may be subject to harmless-error review)
- Price v. State, 995 So. 2d 401 (distinguishes technical vs substantive defects in informations)
- Gray v. State, 435 So. 2d 816 (an information that wholly omits an essential element is fundamentally defective)
- Miller v. State, 42 So. 3d 204 (relief for information defects requires showing actual prejudice to trial fairness)