Dowdell v. State, AG-225
| Decision Date | 16 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AG-225,AG-225 |
| Citation | 415 So.2d 144 |
| Parties | Napoleon DOWDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kathryn L. Sands, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Napoleon Dowdell's appeal from judgments of guilt of robbery while in possession of a firearm and kidnapping while in possession of a firearm and sentences for both offenses raises two issues:
I. Was the movement or confinement of the victim inconsequential or inherent in the nature of the robbery?
II. Did the kidnapping offense, by definition and as alleged in the information, require proof of the underlying felony of robbery so as to make it error for the trial court to impose consecutive sentences for each conviction?
Answering both questions in the negative, we affirm.
The facts relevant to the robbery and the kidnapping charges establish that a Taco Bell was robbed at about 12:30 a. m. The store had closed earlier and the manager had stayed around to clean up and to do some paperwork. At 12:15 a. m. the manager got a call from someone in an apartment building which overlooked the parking lot of the Taco Bell and was told that someone was doing something around the manager's car which was in the parking lot behind the Taco Bell. The manager looked out a peephole through the rear door and could not see anything and did nothing further. He then got a second call with similar information. At that time he grabbed a knife and went out a side door to investigate. There were no other cars in the parking lot. As he got near his car, he then saw a man standing with a gun pointed at him. There was good lighting in the parking lot. The man told him to open the door before he killed him. They walked inside, going through the rear door. All of the interior lights were on in Taco Bell. The robber required the manager to get down below counter level and crawl toward the front of the store to the safe and to get money out and put it in a bank bag. The robber then ripped out the phone and left through the rear door.
We reject Dowdell's contention that the confinement and movement of the victim in this case was not significantly independent of the crime of robbery. The movement of the manager from the well-lighted parking lot through the rear door into the building and the requirement that he stay out-of-sight below counter level in moving to and from the safe supports...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State, 85-2725
...committed. See Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (restaurant employees tied up on floor after robbery); Dowdell v. State, 415 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983) (restaurant manager forced to re-enter restaurant through rear door from parking lo......
-
Sorey v. State, 81-2465
...view of the kidnapping statute which we espoused in Faison v. State, supra, Sorey's argument fares even worse. Accord, Dowdell v. State, 415 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (requiring store manager at gunpoint to re-enter rear door of store and crawl to safe in front constitutes movement and ......
-
Ferguson v. State, 87-0714
...468 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 478 So.2d 53 (Fla.1985); Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dowdell v. State, 415 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983); Harkins v. State, 380 So.2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We recognize a conflict with C......
-
Taylor v. State
...just previously committed. A kidnapping was therefore proven below. Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963, 966 (Fla.1983); Dowdell v. State, 415 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983). Fourth, the defendant contends that the sentences imposed violate the sent......