Case Name: Gary Thomas WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-01-31
Citations: 810 So. 2d 873
Docket Number: No. SC00-2163
Parties: Gary Thomas WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: SHAW, ANSTEAD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 810
Pages: 873–876

Head Matter:
Gary Thomas WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. SC00-2163.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 31, 2002.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan and Dee Ball, Assistant Public Defenders, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and David H. Foxman and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorneys General, Day-tona Beach, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
HARDING, J.
We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:
IS THE ACCOMPLICE TO MASKED OFFENSES GUILTY OF THE ENHANCED OFFENSES?
Wright v. State, 767 So.2d 576, 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4),'Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the negative.
Wright was the driver of a vehicle from which two cohorts with masks emerged and robbed another driver of his cell phone and bag. They also attempted to hijack that driver's vehicle but the victim ran away with the keys. Wright was convicted of both robbery with a mask and attempted carjacking with a mask. On appeal, the district court affirmed Wright's convictions and certified the question above. See id.
Wright contends that since he remained unmasked in his vehicle, his offenses cannot be reclassified under the provisions of section 775.0845, Florida Statutes (1997) ("Wearing mask while committing offense; reclassification"). Section 775.0845 provides:
The felony or misdemeanor degree of any criminal offense, other than a violation of ss. 876.12-876.15, shall be reclassified to the next higher degree as provided in this section if, while committing the offense, the offender was wearing a hood, mask, or other device that concealed his or her identity.
We hold that a defendant's sentence cannot be enhanced under section 775.0845 without evidence establishing that the defendant personally wore a hood, mask, or other device that concealed his or her identity. In this case, the State concedes that Wright did not wear a mask during the commission of the robbery or attempted carjacking. We reject the State's contention that Wright's offenses should be enhanced on the theory of constructive or vicarious identity concealment based on the conduct of the codefendants. See State v. Rodriguez, 602 So.2d 1270 (Fla.1992).
We address one other issue raised by Wright in his brief. Wright claims that double jeopardy bars convictions for both robbery and attempted carjacking. This Court recently rejected this argument in Cruller v. State, 808 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2002).
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the opinion below.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
WELLS, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs.