Hill v. State, s. 73--1148
| Decision Date | 09 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | 73--1180,Nos. 73--1148,s. 73--1148 |
| Citation | 293 So.2d 79 |
| Parties | Cephus HILL and John Leggett, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This is an appeal from convictions resulting from a holdup at a Publix Supermarket.
The appellant, John Leggett was found guilty by a jury of five counts of robbery in violation of Fla.Stat. § 813.011, F.S.A. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 35 years in state prison.
The public defender previously filed a motion to withdraw in case no. 73--1148, involving co-defendant, Cephus Hill, and having proceeded in the manner outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, the appeal in that case is not now considered.
In addition, the only point argued to this court was point two of the appellant's brief, and therefore, that is the sole point which we have considered in case no. 73--1180.
The appellant contends that Count I and II of the information charged only a single offense; and, therefore, one of the counts must be reversed. We agree.
In essence, Leggett was charged in these two counts with robbery of Alston Gonzalez, the manager of the store, and Pam Wiley, a cashier.
The proof at trial showed that Leggett entered the office area of the store, brandishing a gun. He ordered both the cashier and the manager to give him money belonging to Publix from a drawer and a safe.
Appellant cites Hearn v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 559 in which the Florida Supreme Court held that where all of the property which is the subject of a larceny is stolen at the same time, in the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent, only a single larceny has been committed.
The state distinguishes Hearn v. State, supra, on the basis that in this case the charges were robbery, not simply larceny and one element of the offense is force or violence against the victim or putting the victim in fear.
Nevertheless, the statute clearly provides that the money or property taken in a robbery must be the subject of larceny, and we think the Hearm case is controlling.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the sentence upon counts one and two must be vacated, and the cause remanded for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. State
...were gathered in Judge Cowart's opinion for the court in Drakes v. State, 400 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). They include Hill v. State, 293 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Avilia v. State, 278 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), and Russell v. State, 107 So.2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). In Hill the c......
-
Drakes v. State, 79-1705
...one continuous act or transaction is a single theft offense. Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559, 28 A.L.R.2d 1179 (Fla.1951); Hill v. State, 293 So.2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Avilia v. State, 278 So.2d 298 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); Russell v. State, 107 So.2d 801 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). However, appellant fai......
-
Taylor v. State
...consecutively with that imposed on Count I. This appeal followed. Citing to Brown v. State, 430 So.2d 446 (Fla.1983) and Hill v. State, 293 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), appellant first argues that he cannot be convicted of two robberies in connection with the above described incident becaus......
-
Brown v. State
...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 Brown entered a Family Dollar Store, approached one cashier, displayed a firearm, and directed her to empty the money fr......