Case Name: Quinten CLEVELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-02-14
Citations: 574 So. 2d 289
Docket Number: No. 89-2450
Parties: Quinten CLEVELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: HARRIS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 574
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Quinten CLEVELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-2450.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 14, 1991.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David S. Morgan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment and a sentence.
Appellant was convicted of attempted armed robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, the attempted armed robbery. He alleges a double jeopardy violation. It is not.
We find that defendant was properly convicted of and sentenced for the two crimes of attempted armed robbery with a firearm, sections 812.13(1) and (2)(a) and 777.-04, Florida Statutes (1989) and use of a firearm while committing a felony, section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1989). We note that the Supreme Court of Florida has held in relevant part that "all criminal offenses containing unique statutory elements shall be separately punished." State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613, 616 (Fla.1989). Both of the primary statutes in the instant case contain unique elements, while the element of a firearm or weapon is common to both statutes. However, the element that is unique to section 812.13 is that the firearm or weapon usage must relate to a robbery, whereas section 790.07, on the other hand, applies to any felony. Although under the facts of this case the use of the firearm in the robbery was necessary for application of the weapons statute, this court recently held that the appropriate test is not whether it is an "element" under the facts of the case, but, rather, "whether it is a necessary element under the statute." Davis v. State, 560 So.2d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA), juris accepted, 568 So.2d 435 (Fla.1990).
We note that our sister court has reached a different conclusion in a short opinion in Graham v. State, 559 So.2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (convictions for attempted armed robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony violative of double jeopardy) and we therefore certify conflict.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, J., concurs.
COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.