Andre v. State, 82-560
| Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-560,82-560 |
| Citation | 431 So.2d 1042 |
| Parties | Keith Alan ANDRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a robbery conviction. The principal question is whether the evidence supports a conviction for robbery or the lesser included offense of theft.
Robbery is defined in section 812.13(1), Florida Statutes, as:
(1) "Robbery" means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.
Section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes, defines the lesser of the forms of robbery as:
(2)(c) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried no firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Finally, section 812.13(3) described what the legislature meant when it used the words "in the course of committing the robbery" in section 812.13(2)(a), (b) and (c), Florida Statutes, and it says:
(3) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing the robbery" if it occurs in an attempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commission.
The facts in this case are that appellant snatched money from the hand of the victim while in the process of discussing a drug deal. When the victim protested and pursued appellant to recover the money, the appellant and his compatriots beat and knocked down the victim and left with the money.
Appellant asserts that the facts in this case do not support a conviction for robbery because he says the only real "force" in this case was inflicted after the taking and that no force, in the robbery sense, was used to obtain the money. In his argument he asserts: "The taking was swift, complete and without violence."
While appellant is correct in his statement that the initial taking was done without violence, he is incorrect when he concludes that the only crime proved was larceny. Appellant is wrong for two reasons. First, because the definition of robbery does not limit itself to "violence" but also includes "force;" the act of "snatching" the money from another's hands is force and that force will support a robbery conviction. McCloud v. State, 335 So.2d 257 (Fla.1976). In McCloud, our supreme court said "[a]ny degree of force...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch v. United States, No. 14-15733
...484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ). Likewise, the Florida Supreme Court in Robinson acknowledged—and disapproved of—the Fifth DCA’s holding in Andre v. State that "any degree of force, including that used to snatch money from a person’s hand, was force sufficient to satisfy the force element of robb......
-
Royal v. State, s. 82-1050
...constitute robbery. This meaning of the statute is exactly in accord with the case law defining common law robbery. In Andre v. State, 431 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), the defendant snatched money from the hand of a victim while in the process of discussing a drug deal and when the victi......
-
Robinson v. State
...by means of the alternative element of intimidation. The district court in this case relied on the decision in Andre v. State, 431 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), to support its conclusion that the degree of force used to snatch a victim's property from his person, even when the victim does......
-
Britton v. United States
...of Florida Statute § 812.13(1). Because the Florida robbery statute may be violated through the use of any degree of force, Andre v. State, 431 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1983), it cannot meet the definition of a crime of violence under the force clause of § 4B1.2(a)(1). See Johnson I, 559 U.S. at 13......