Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AG-238,AG-238 |
| Parties | Jimmy BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Barbara Ann Butler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Brown appeals from a final judgment of guilt of two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, contending the trial court erred in adjudicating him guilty of two counts of armed robbery when his offense constituted a single criminal transaction. Brown also charges as error the trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson 1 inquiry upon his objection to an alleged violation of the discovery rules by the State. We affirm.
A lone man, later identified as Brown, entered a store and asked the store supervisor whether the store sold money orders. Upon being advised that the store did not sell money orders, he pulled a gun from his waistband and demanded the money from the cash register which the supervisor was operating. After receiving the cash, he demanded the money from the store's other cash register for which the supervisor had no key. He then had her call another store employee who was working in the rear of the store and who had the key to the other register. Although told by the supervisor that a robbery was in progress, the other employee thought the supervisor was joking until Brown pulled his jacket back and showed her the butt of his pistol sticking out of his waistband. She was "nervous and scared" when she saw it "because he may have used the gun on me." She then opened her register and gave the cash in it to Brown. Relying on Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla.1951); Morgan v. State, 407 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Thomas v. State, 405 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Hill v. State, 293 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), Brown argues that under the facts outlined above there was only a single criminal transaction or episode and he can therefore be sentenced for only one count of robbery.
As defined in Section 812.13(1), Fla.Stat., 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." (Emphasis added) The mere fact that the property may be owned by a single person or entity does not prevent separate robbery charges if two different people are robbed of money or property that is within their custody. An additional element of the crime of robbery is that the money or property must be taken by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. Separate charges of robbery are proper against a person who has taken money or property belonging to or in the custody of two separate individuals if each taking is accompanied by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. Surely it cannot be contended that separate charges of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rivera v. State
-
Rose v. State
...DCA 1982), aff'd. in part; rev'd. in part, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983).3 Holmes v. State, 453 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 413 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), affirmed, 430 So.2d 446 (Fla.1983); Hillman v. State, 410 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); O'Neal v. State, 323 So.2d 685 ......
-
State v. Copenhaver
...v. State, the Florida case, arguably involves a statute where the unit of prosecution is a taking rather than an assault. See413 So.2d 1273, 1274 (Fla.Ct.App.1982), aff'd,430 So.2d 446 (Fla.1983). However, as one reads the Florida Supreme Court's opinion, it seems clear Florida does not fol......
-
Horne v. United States
...property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear." Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 1273, 1274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982), aff'd, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983) (changes underlined). In Stokeling v. United States, the Supreme Court emphasized......