Brown v. State

Decision Date14 April 1983
Docket NumberNo. 62198,62198
Citation430 So.2d 446
PartiesJimmy BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Nancy A. Daniels and Gwendolyn Spivey, Asst. Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Barbara Ann Butler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jacksonville, for respondent.

McDONALD, Justice.

We granted the petition for review of the decision below, Brown v. State, 413 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), based upon apparent conflict with Hill v. State, 293 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). We approve.

Brown entered a Family Dollar Store, approached one cashier, displayed a firearm, and directed her to empty the money from her register into a paper bag. Failing to find the manager, Brown returned to the first cashier and ordered her to open a second cash register. The cashier did not have a key to the second register and so summoned her only fellow employee who had a key to the second register. The second employee refused to believe that a robbery was actually in progress and would not open the register until Brown displayed his firearm to her. She then opened the register for which she was solely responsible and placed its contents in the paper bag with the money from the first register. Brown was convicted of two counts of robbery and the district court of appeal affirmed his convictions.

In Hill the defendant entered a grocery store, brandishing a gun, and ordered both the cashier and manager to give him money belonging to the store chain from a drawer and a safe. Because all the money which was the subject of the robbery was taken at the same time and place, under the same circumstances and with the same intent, the district court ruled that separate counts charging robbery of both the manager and the cashier charged but a single offense.

The Hill court cited Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla.1951), wherein this Court held that only one larceny was committed where the property, consisting of eleven cattle belonging to different owners, was taken at the same time from the same place under the same circumstances and with the same intent. In Green v. State, 134 Fla. 216, 183 So. 728 (1938), we noted that where property is stolen from the same owner from the same place by a series of acts, if each taking is a result of a separate independent impulse, it is a separate crime. Hence, in larceny cases it is not the fact that the same owner's property is involved that controls, but rather whether there were separate events, each with a separate intent. In Hall v. State, 66 So.2d 863 (Fla.1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 931, 74 S.Ct. 321, 98 L.Ed. 422 (1954), we affirmed separate convictions where the taking of cattle on the same day involved the invasion of separate pastures even though the same motor truck was used.

In this case the money taken by the defendant belonged to a single owner, but it was taken by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear from two separate employees. The taking was from separate cash registers, over the second of which the first employee had no control. The two events were separated in time and each required separate criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Akins v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 Diciembre 1984
    ...1983), at 42 and 44.7 See Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982).8 See, e.g., Brown v. State, 430 So.2d 446 (Fla.1983); Holmes v. State, 453 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).9 The threat of the early day English highway robber was succinct: "Your m......
  • Rose v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Abril 1987
    ...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 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So.2d 607 (Fla.......
  • State v. Copenhaver
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 2014
    ...“presence of another,” two clerks had sufficient control over the store property to support two robbery convictions); Brown v. State, 430 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1983) (finding two robberies when a defendant took money from two separate employees at two separate cash registers); Commonwealth v.......
  • Jones v. State, 93-1048
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 1995
    ...occurrence of "successive and distinctive forceful takings with a separate and independent intent for each transaction." Brown v. State, 430 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1983); Lundy v. State, 614 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Taylor v. State, 589 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), quashed on other grou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT