Johnson v. State, AM-491

Citation432 So.2d 758
Decision Date09 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. AM-491,AM-491
PartiesWillie JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Michael Allen, Public Defender, and David Busch, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

NIMMONS, Judge.

Johnson appeals from a conviction of armed robbery. He asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of any offense greater than attempted robbery. The narrow issue in this case is whether there was a "taking" within the meaning of the robbery statute, Section 812.13, Florida Statutes. We believe there was and affirm.

This was a convenience store robbery of a female clerk on December 19, 1981, in Tallahassee. After entering the store with his accomplice, Johnson approached the clerk, threatened her with a knife and demanded all of her money. The clerk replied that she would give them all she had but begged them not to hurt her. The accomplice was carrying a "club" which was subsequently identified as an axe handle. Johnson and his accomplice were positioned in front of the counter and the clerk was behind the counter at the cash register. Pursuant to the accomplice's instructions, the clerk put the money from the register in a paper bag and placed the bag on the counter in front of them. Although Johnson touched the bag, neither he nor his accomplice picked it up. Instead, they turned away from the counter as the presence of surveilling police officers became evident. The accomplice was arrested as he left the store and Johnson surrendered after being ordered to come outside the store.

Robbery is defined in Section 812.13(1), Florida Statutes, as follows:

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 robbery statute in its present form has been with us since 1974. Ch. 74-383, Laws of Florida. However, the "taking" element of robbery was expressly included in predecessor statutes and was also an element of common law robbery. Williams v. Mayo, 126 Fla. 871, 172 So. 86 (1937). We are therefore at liberty to rely upon a broad range of authorities which have addressed this element.

The taking involved in robbery is basically equivalent to the asportation element of common law larceny. Williams v. Mayo, supra; accord Bell v. State, 394 So.2d 979 (Fla.1981); Martin v. State, 379 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The asportation required for the crime of larceny may be completed by the slightest removal of the article from its original position or place where the owner placed it or wanted it to be. Lyons v. State, 47 So.2d 541 (Fla.1950); Driggers v. State, 96 Fla. 232, 118 So. 20 (1920). Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435 (1938). In Driggers, supra, a case wherein the defendants were charged with larceny of a cow, the court stated:

By the act of these accused persons [the animal] was removed from a standing position to a prone position upon its side. The act was done for the purpose of depriving the owner of his property without his consent and to appropriate it to the use of the slayers of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Royal v. State, s. 82-1050
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 1984
    ...a larceny it was not necessary that the property be removed from the presence of the owner or from his premises. In Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the court observed that the taking involved in robbery is basically equivalent to the asportation element of common law la......
  • Gutierrez v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 5, 2012
    ...453–454(1), 477 S.E.2d 878 (1996). “[I]t is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber....” Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla.App.1983). As worded in State v. Watson, supra at 484(2), 520 S.E.2d 911, it is not “required that the defendant physically touch ......
  • Lattimore v. US
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 1996
    ...touched the wallet, which the victim removed from his pocket, at appellant's direction, and threw on the ground); Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 758, 758-59 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (taking proved where victim took money from cash register, put it in a bag and placed the bag on the counter, alth......
  • State v. Hollen
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1999
    ...asportation of the robber. Rather, if the robber forces another to `take' the property, a robbery has occurred."); Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber...."); State v. Beatty, 617 S.W.2d ......
  • 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