Filed: Mar. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D16-5588 _ KAYRON O. ERVIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James C. Hankinson, Judge. March 8, 2018 PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Appellant, Kayron O. Ervin, challenges his judgment and sentences for the crimes of grand theft of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, and extortion, raising two points for our review. We affirm on Point I without comment, but our af
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D16-5588 _ KAYRON O. ERVIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James C. Hankinson, Judge. March 8, 2018 PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Appellant, Kayron O. Ervin, challenges his judgment and sentences for the crimes of grand theft of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, and extortion, raising two points for our review. We affirm on Point I without comment, but our aff..
More
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D16-5588
_____________________________
KAYRON O. ERVIN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
James C. Hankinson, Judge.
March 8, 2018
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Appellant, Kayron O. Ervin,
challenges his judgment and sentences for the crimes of grand
theft of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, and extortion,
raising two points for our review. We affirm on Point I without
comment, but our affirmance on Point II merits an explanation.
During its deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the
trial court. Appellant claims the trial court’s special instruction
given in response to the question negated his entire defense to the
charge of extortion. We disagree. Under the facts of this case, the
trial court’s answer was a correct statement of the law regarding
extortion. See Duan v. State,
970 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA
2007). Furthermore, we conclude the instruction neither suggested
a verdict nor coerced the jury to reach a hasty decision. In sum,
Appellant’s defense to the charge of extortion remained viable, and
he has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
JAY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Megan Long, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2