RICHARDSON V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 ERIC RICHARDSON, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 3D03-2157 ** Appellee. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 99-35378 ** Opinion filed November 3, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Leonard Glick, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Godfrey, Assistant Public Defender. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Thomas C. motion to Before COPE, GERSTEN and WELLS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Eric Richardson appeals correct illegal sentence. an order We affirm. denying his We concur with the trial court that there was no double jeopardy violation. The amendment on remand from Richardson v. State, 818 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) made no difference because the court did not employ subsection 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1999), to reclassify the offense of attempted second degree murder to a higher level of felony. Further, even if the court had relied on subsection 775.087(1)--which it did not--the change in terminology from weapon to deadly weapon does not make any statute. substantive difference in the application of the Finally, this was a favorable plea bargain in which the parties mutually agreed on the sentence, as well as the offense, to which the defendant pled guilty. That being so, had there been any double jeopardy issue, the claim would have been waived. The See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994). defendant s pro se motion labors under the misconception that at his original trial he was acquitted of the use of a knife in connection with the attempted second degree murder. That is not so. A proper interpretation of the verdict form is that in the original trial he was convicted of the offense as charged. This court reversed for a new trial on the attempted second degree murder charge on account of an error in the jury instructions, 818 So. 2d parties entered into the plea bargain. 2 at 680, after which the The trial court was also correct in rejecting the defendant s claim that he does not qualify as habitual a violent felony offender. The record demonstrates that he does qualify. Affirmed. The defendant was also convicted of false imprisonment at the original trial. That conviction and sentence were not disturbed on appeal. Thus, it was agreed at the subsequent plea colloquy on the attempted second degree murder charge that no resentencing would be required on the false imprisonment charge. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
