Case Name: Alfredo THOMPSON and Howard Coleman, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-02-20
Citations: 487 So. 2d 311
Docket Number: Nos. 84-1460, 84-1523
Parties: Alfredo THOMPSON and Howard Coleman, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 487
Pages: 311–318

Head Matter:
Alfredo THOMPSON and Howard Coleman, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 84-1460, 84-1523.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 20, 1986.
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1986.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gary W. Tinsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COBB, Chief Judge.
The defendants were charged with robbery while carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon (§ 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat.). At trial, at the close of the evidence, the defendants requested the trial court to instruct the jury on certain lesser included offenses including the offense of robbery without a weapon or firearm (§ 812.-13(2)(c), Fla.Stat.). The trial court refused this request because in its opinion the evidence adduced showed conclusively and without contradiction that if the defendants committed the robbery in question at all it was committed with a firearm and there was no evidence that it was committed without a weapon or firearm. The defendants made no request for a jury instruction as to the necessarily lesser included offense of robbery while carrying a weapon (§ 812.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat.) and made no objection to the failure of the trial court to submit a jury verdict alternative as to that offense. The defendants were convicted as charged. On appeal they argue that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to instruct on the necessarily lesser included offense of robbery without a weapon or firearm.
As a matter of law, robbery without a weapon or firearm under subsection (c) of the statute is a necessarily lesser included offense of robbery while carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon, under subsection (a). Having requested it, the defendants were entitled to an instruction on this necessarily lesser included offense, although the trial court found that there was a total lack of evidence to support a jury finding that the robbery in question was committed without a weapon or firearm. See Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968); Hand v. State, 199 So.2d 100 (Fla.1967).
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b), as amended in 1981, provides that the trial judge shall not instruct on permissive lesser included offenses (i.e., category two of the present Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (1981 ed.)), as to which there is no evidence. It does not alter the Brown rule in regard to the requirement to instruct on necessarily lesser included offenses (i.e., category one of the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses). See Matter of Use By Trial of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.1981); Wimberly v. State, 476 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Flint v. State, 463 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Cannon v. State, 456 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So.2d 1108 (Fla.1985); Foster v. State, 448 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Wheat v. State, 433 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 444 So.2d 418 (Fla.1984); but see Louttit v. State, 467 So.2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 480 So.2d 1294 (Fla.1985).
Robbery while carrying a weapon, under subsection (b) of the statute, is the next immediate necessarily lesser included offense (one step removed) of robbery while carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon. Reddick v. State, 394 So.2d 417 (Fla.1981). State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1978), holds that where the omitted instruction relates to an offense two or more steps removed from the offense charged, appellate courts may properly find such error to be harmless under Delaine v. State, 262 So.2d 655 (Fla.1972). Nevertheless, Abreau makes it clear that the Delaine rule was meant to apply only where the trial court has given instructions on the next immediate lesser included offense, which was not done in the instant case. Therefore, under Abreau, the De-laine rule does not apply and the error in this case may not be considered harmless. Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
. Rule 3.510(b) provides:
Upon an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried for any offense the jury may convict the defendant of:
*
(b) any offense which as a matter of law is a necessarily included offense or a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the indictment or information and is supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence.
. Contrary to what is stated in the dissent, this 1981 Florida Supreme Court opinion expressly limited the scope of the proposed rule amendment to three types of lesser offenses — attempts, lesser degrees, and permissive lesser offenses. It expressly did not encompass necessarily lesser included offenses; therefore, it is clear that Rule 3.510(b), as amended, does not dispense with the requirement to instruct on necessarily lesser included offenses in contravention of the very supreme court opinion authorizing it.