From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prater v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 18, 1992
608 So. 2d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

holding that trial court committed per se reversible error when it omitted a necessarily lesser included offense from the verdict form, precluding the jury from exercising its pardon power

Summary of this case from Bethea v. State

Opinion

No. 91-02847.

November 18, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Manatee County, Thomas M. Gallen, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Timothy A. Hickey, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Andrew L. Prater contends the trial court erred by failing to submit to the jury a verdict form for simple burglary, the next lesser included offense of burglary of a dwelling for which he was charged and convicted under section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1989). We agree and reverse.

In this case, the trial court's written and oral instructions to the jury properly included the charged offense of burglary of a dwelling as well as the lesser included offense of simple burglary. In re: Std. Jury Instr. In Crim. Cases, 543 So.2d 1205, 1233 (Fla. 1989). The verdict form, however, included only the choices guilty of burglary of a dwelling or not guilty. A verdict form, such as the one in this case, that is not in conformance with the jury instructions is defective. Wilson v. State, 566 So.2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

The lesser included offense of simple burglary that was omitted from the verdict form was only "one step" removed from the primary offense of burglary of a dwelling. The trial court's omission of the lesser offense precluded the jury from exercising its inherent pardon power if it concluded the evidence warranted only a conviction of simple burglary. State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). This omission is error and is per se reversible. Fernandez v. State, 570 So.2d 1008, 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) rev. denied, 581 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1991). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence for count I of case number 90-2873F and remand for a new trial on that count.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.


Summaries of

Prater v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 18, 1992
608 So. 2d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

holding that trial court committed per se reversible error when it omitted a necessarily lesser included offense from the verdict form, precluding the jury from exercising its pardon power

Summary of this case from Bethea v. State

reiterating the general rule that a verdict form that is not in conformance with the jury instructions is defective (citing Wilson v. State, 566 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) )

Summary of this case from Banks v. State

noting that simple burglary is "only `one step' removed from the primary offense of burglary of a dwelling"

Summary of this case from McKiver v. State
Case details for

Prater v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW L. PRATER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 18, 1992

Citations

608 So. 2d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Rogers v. State

Williams v. State, 792 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 2001).Macri v. State, 689 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (citing…

Morris v. State

The general rule is that a verdict form is defective when it does not conform with instructions given to the…