On appeal from his conviction for the lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree, the defendant argues: (1 )the district court erred in giving jury instruction Nos. 19 (robbery in the second degree) and 20 (robbery in the third degree) because the instructions described offenses that require the same acts; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of assault, as he never faced the victim and made no threatening movements with the knife nor did he threaten the victim; (3) the verdict was inconsistent with the evidence and with the factual basis for the State’s charging decision; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the robbery statutes on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

County:

Polk

Trial Court Case No.:

FECR296305