1D2021-3588
Profit challenged his first-degree murder conviction, arguing the jury's general verdict could have improperly rested on a felony-murder theory based on the lesser petit theft conviction rather than robbery. The First DCA held the claim was unpreserved (a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion cannot attack conviction validity) and that no fundamental error occurred because the evidence, arguments, and jury instructions supported two valid alternative theories—premeditated murder and felony murder based on attempted robbery—making it implausible the jury relied on an invalid theft-based theory.
Key facts
- Profit was convicted of first-degree murder and petit theft in the trial court.
- Profit challenged his murder conviction by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, arguing the jury's general verdict improperly relied on felony murder based on the lesser petit theft conviction rather than robbery.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion usefully applies and limits the 'true inconsistent verdict' doctrine (Brown v. State, Powell) in the fundamental-error context, distinguishing Zelaya and Proctor by emphasizing that where multiple valid… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.