Florida Supreme Court Answers Key Sentencing Question in Grand Theft of Firearm Cases

November 11, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Theft/Property Crimes Social Share

Florida’s Supreme Court ruled that grand theft of a firearm defendants cannot be said to have “acquired a firearm” while committing a felony for sentence enhancement purposes. Learn why.

In Florida, grand theft of a firearm (Fla. Stat. 812.014) is a very serious offense. It is considered a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 – regardless of the value of the firearm allegedly stolen or misappropriated. For someone to be guilty, they must do either of the following:

• Deprive the legal owner/possessor of their right to the firearm or a benefit from it
• Appropriate the firearm to one’s own use or the use of another not entitled to it

Someone may face a charge (and be convicted) of grand theft of a firearm for each firearm they allegedly stole or misappropriated. Kelso v. State, 961 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2007)

Note: A firearm is defined as any weapon that will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. This includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon, any firearm muffler or silencer, any destructive device, and any machine gun – but not antiques. Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d. DCA 1997).

In the decades since Florida’s grand theft of a firearm law passed, a key issue confronted by state courts has been how to properly sentence defendants convicted of the offense. This is because Florida has laws (such as Fla. Stat. 775.087) that provide for significant longer sentences if a felony is committed with a firearm. 

Generally, courts have interpreted these enhancements to apply when a defendant uses a firearm during the commission of the crime (that they possessed prior to the offense itself), or acquires a firearm while committing the offense. If a felony is covered by 775.087, either of these triggers an “enhancement,” often involving harsh mandatory minimum prison sentences. 

But is grand theft of a firearm (Fla. Stat. 812.014) covered by Fla. Stat. 775.087, also known as the “10-20-Life” law in Florida? Two schools of thought emerged while this was debated.. If the answer to this question was yes, grand theft of a firearm would carry significantly more prison time than if the answer was no.

Prior to the Florida Supreme Court weighing in, the State argued that the crime was covered as a felony involving a firearm for sentencing purposes. The State asserted that because a firearm is being acquired in the course of a grand theft and the crime was not expressly left out of 775.087, eighteen “firearm” points must be added to a defendant’s sentencing scoresheet.

As this can translate to additional months or even years in prison, defense attorneys asserted that grand theft of a firearm was in a “category of its own.” In essence, because the firearm was the object of the crime (not used at any point during the commission of the crime or in furtherance of it), grand theft of a firearm was not a “firearm-related offense” in the eyes of these advocates.

State courts grappled with this question for years before the Florida Supreme Court answered it. Let’s take a look at how the Court ruled in a landmark case on this issue in Scott v. State, 718 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1998).

KEY CASE: Scott v. State, 718 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1998)

In Scott, the defendant (Scott) was convicted of grand theft of a firearm. At sentencing, a key issue arose – whether 18 points would be added to Scott’s sentencing scoresheet as part of a standard “firearm” enhancement under Fla. Stat. 775.087.

The defense argued that the enhancement should not apply in Scott’s case, stating the following to the trial judge:

“Here the felony is stealing the firearm. And the statute or the rule, if an offender is convicted of committing or trying to commit any felony other than those enumerated 775.087(2) while having in his possession a firearm an additional eighteen points are added, and I believe that contemplates a separate felony.”

“This is the felony. It’s not… committing a grand theft while having in his possession a firearm, or trafficking in drugs while having in his possession a firearm. This constitutes the entire crime. And I believe scoring eighteen points would be inappropriate.”

The trial judge agreed, and ruled that 18 points would not be added to Scott’s scoresheet. The judge reasoned: 

“If in the course of the grand theft of the other merchandise, whatever it was here, VCR or whatever, he used a firearm in the commission of that grand theft and it was charged as a grand theft with the use of a firearm and not the grand theft of the firearm, I think then the enhancement would be appropriate. But under the circumstances the way the case is charged, I think it is not and I will strike the eighteen points from the-from the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.”

The State appealed the trial judge’s decision not to apply the enhancement, and Scott’s case ultimately made it to the Florida Supreme Court. Resolving a dispute between various District Courts of Appeal on this issue, the Florida Supreme Court held that grand theft of a firearm was not covered by “10-20-Life” (Fla. Stat. 775.087). The Court wrote:

“Although the trial court declined to assess the additional points, on appeal the district court reversed, but acknowledged conflict with Galloway. We agree with the trial court’s reasoning, which is consistent with Galloway, as well as the First District’s recent holding in Dodson v. State, 710 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…”

“In Dodson, the First District held that the defendant was improperly assessed eighteen points for grand theft of a firearm because he ‘committed the crime when he took the firearm; he did not possess a firearm when he committed the crime.’ … Our construction of Galloway and its interpretation of rule 3.702(d)(12) logically extends to those cases, such as the instant case, involving grand theft of a firearm, i.e., where ‘an offense is committed by the acquisition of a firearm.’ Dodson, 710 So.2d at 160.”

Put simply, the Court ruled that grand theft of a firearm did not involve acquiring a firearm while committing the offense. Since the firearm is the object of the grand theft (the entire crime), there is no underlying “offense,” other than the illegal acquisition of the firearm. As a result, the Court ruled that the extra sentencing points were improper.

Justice Wells of the Florida Supreme Court dissented from the majority’s opinion, framing this as “activism” to avoid what the Court viewed as unreasonably harsh sentences for grand theft of a firearm. He wrote:

“The majority’s opinion clearly usurps legislative authority by simply ignoring the plain language of section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes. It is a serious error for this Court to violate the separation of powers doctrine… Regardless of the rationalization expressed, the majority’s decision in sum is that the legislature’s mandate for eighteen points for the commission of this felony while possessing a firearm is too harsh, so the majority substitutes its judgment on the issue for that of the legislature.”

However, Justice Wells’s opinion did not win the day. As a result, a trial court in Florida may not impose 18 extra sentencing points for grand theft of a firearm, as it is not covered by Fla. Stat. 775.087.

In sum, Scott v. State, 718 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1998) is an intriguing decision that lies at the heart of Florida sentencing law in grand theft of a firearm cases. The Court held that Fla. Stat. 775.087, which provides harsher sentences for felonies when firearms were used to commit the offense or acquired while committing the offense, does not apply to grand theft of a firearm.

This is because, in the eyes of the Court, there is no underlying crime without the acquisition of the firearm. Since the taking of a firearm constitutes the entirety of the offense, the Scott majority held that 10-20-Life (Fla. Stat. 775.087) was not intended to cover grand theft of a firearm. This is critical to understand if someone is facing sentencing for violating Fla. Stat. 812.014.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving grand theft of a firearm, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share