Case Name: Cedric WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-01-02
Citations: 705 So. 2d 938
Docket Number: No. 96-3129
Parties: Cedric WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 705
Pages: 938–943

Head Matter:
Cedric WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-3129.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 2, 1998.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1998.
Mark E. NeJame and Joe Daniel Harrington, of Law Offices of Mark E. NeJame, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
The only issue raised on appeal in this case is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of attempted second-degree murder. After an altercation, appellant left the scene, later returned in his car with a gun and fired several shots at the victim, striking him twice — once in each leg. The appellant focuses solely on the testimony of the victim who, at one point in the trial, testified that it seemed to him that the defendant was aiming at the ground and the bullets were bouncing off the ground into his legs. He subsequently attempted to explain that this could not have been the case but the court evidently agreed with defense counsel that the damage to the state's attempted first-degree murder charge was irreparable. The state conceded the lack of sufficient evidence for attempted first-degree murder but urged the evidence was sufficient to support the lesser included offenses of attempted second-degree murder or aggravated battery. The defense did not object to the reduction in the charge. There is plainly sufficient evidence to support the attempted second-degree murder conviction. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 569 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
The question whether attempted second-degree murder survives as a recognized criminal offense in Florida, the issue on which my colleagues write, was not raised below or on appeal. Moreover, the law appears well settled that attempted second-degree murder is a crime in Florida and that it is a necessarily lesser included offense of attempted first-degree murder. Gentry v. State, 437 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1983); Holland v. State, 634 So.2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Dicicco v. State, 496 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Williams v. State, 462 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 472 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1985); Morgan v. State, 417 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 426 So.2d 27 (Fla.1983); Littles v. State, 384 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See Florida Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.), Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses. The difficulties that inhere in attempted second-degree murder are undeniable, if not novel. They were recognized prior to Gentry and the stated purpose of Gentry was to put them to rest.
Whether the supreme court has changed direction in Thomas v. State, 531 So.2d 708 (Fla.1988) and State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla.1995) thereby eliminating attempted second-degree murder and displacing Gentry is a question of some substance. Attempted felony murder and attempted second-degree murder are different, however, and the practical difficulties noted by the supreme court in applying Amlotte v. State, 456 So.2d 448 (Fla.1984) concept of attempted felony murder do not appear to have arisen in light of Gentry. Manifestly, if the Florida supreme court did abolish the crime of attempted second-degree murder by its decision in Gray, it does not appear to have noticed that it did so. Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 697 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla.1997); State v. Wilson, 680 So.2d 411 (Fla.1996); Harris v. State, 674 So.2d 110, 113 (Fla.1996) (Anstead, J. concurring in part; dissenting in part). Unless the high court says otherwise, the crime described by Justice Shaw in Gentry remains viable.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
HARRIS, J., dissents, with opinion.
. "We now believe that the application of the majority's holding in Amlotte has proven more troublesome than beneficial and that Justice Overton's view is the more logical and correct position." Gray, 654 So.2d at 553. In Gentry on the other hand, Justice Overton was part of the unanimous majority.
. Had a homicide occurred, there can be no doubt that the appellant could have been successfully prosecuted for second-degree murder without the state adducing proof of a specific intent to kill. The fact that [the victim] survived was not the result of any design on the part of the appellant not to effect death but was simply fortuitous. We can think of no good reason to reward the appellant for such fortuity by imposing upon the state the added burden of showing a specific intent to kill in order to successfully prosecute the attempted offense.
Gentry, 437 So.2d at 1099.