1261. 13 . In Battle, a co-defendant named Diaz was convicted of kidnapping while armed and two counts of assault with intent to commit the offense of kidnapping while armed. The testimony at trial indicated that while Diaz temporarily acquired a gun from Battle during the kidnapping of the victim in the first count, he did not possess the gun during the subsequent assaults of other victims. The court held that Diaz could, nevertheless, be subjected to enhanced sentencing based upon accomplice liability because: [t]here is no indication in the D.C.Code, or any case law of this jurisdiction, to suggest that the principles enunciated in section 22-105 [i.e., accomplice liability] do not apply to enhance the sentence of an aider and abettor who assists an armed pri Cal.App.3d 149 (1982), (<HOLDING>), with People v. Tung Thanh Le, 200 Cal.Rptr.
holding that absent legislative intent to impose derivative liability enhanced sentences based on the use of a weapon during a crime may not be imposed on defendants who were not personally armed holding that a sentence may be enhanced based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment admitted on the record or proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the defendants sentence for armed burglary in violation of section 810022b was improperly enhanced pursuant to section 775087 because the use of a weapon or a firearm is an essential element of armed burglary holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime holding that armed robbery cannot be enhanced under section 7750871 florida statutes 1981 because under the robbery statute it is already an enhanced charge due to the use or display of a weapon