Lattimore v. State, No. 89-2326

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation16 Fla. L. Weekly 9,571 So.2d 99
Docket NumberNo. 89-2326
Decision Date18 December 1990
Parties16 Fla. L. Weekly 9 James LATTIMORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 99

571 So.2d 99
16 Fla. L. Weekly 9
James LATTIMORE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-2326.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
Dec. 18, 1990.

Page 100

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Lawrence J. Stein, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant James Lattimore from final judgments of conviction and sentences for (1) burglary of a dwelling, (2) strong-arm robbery, and (3) grand theft auto, based on an adverse jury verdict. We affirm the judgments of conviction, but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing, based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, we conclude that a prima facie corpus delicti of a strong-arm robbery was presented in this case, apart from the defendant's confession, and accordingly, the trial court correctly denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the robbery charge. The victim complained to the police on a 911 tape that she had "just been robbed" in her house; a photograph of the victim was introduced in evidence showing an injury to her left arm which she had when the police responded to her house after receiving the 911 call; the victim was extremely upset when police responded to the subject call; and the house showed signs of an entry into the house and theft of property therein. See State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976); Knight v. State, 402 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ponder v. State, 221 So.2d 437, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see also Bates v. State, 465 So.2d 490, 492 (Fla.1985) (slight victim injury; robbery proved), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873, 108 S.Ct. 212, 98 L.Ed.2d 163 (1987); Santiago v. State, 497 So.2d 975, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (same).

Second, we conclude that the defendant's theft of the victim's automobile was a separate, independent criminal act apart from the strong-arm robbery in the victim's house during which the defendant secured, among other things, the keys to the subject automobile, and thereafter walked outside the house and stole said automobile; accordingly, the trial court correctly denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft auto charge. See Waters v. State, 542 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Joseph v. State, 316 So.2d 585, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Hayes v. State, No. SC96813.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 21, 2001
    ...provided in paragraph (2)(a). 4. In affirming Hayes' convictions, the Third District relied on its prior decision in Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In Lattimore, the Third District rejected the defendant's contention that a double jeopardy violation occurred as a ......
  • Wilson v. State, No. 89-778
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 29, 1992
    ...was a separate, independent criminal act apart from the strong-arm robbery which occurred inside the hotel room. See Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft auto As ......
  • Kipping v. State, No. 95-04795
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 21, 1997
    ...reasons unless coupled Page 582 with another valid reason. See Ready v. State, 657 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Therefore, there is no need to analyze these two factors unless there exists another valid basis for departure in the remainin......
  • Hayes v. State, No. 99-566
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 22, 1999
    ...the victim's car, there is a sufficient separation of time and place to treat the auto theft as a separate crime. See Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); accord Wilson v. State, 608 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).2 The auto theft occurs not upon the 748 So.2d 1045 t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Hayes v. State, No. SC96813.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 21, 2001
    ...provided in paragraph (2)(a). 4. In affirming Hayes' convictions, the Third District relied on its prior decision in Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In Lattimore, the Third District rejected the defendant's contention that a double jeopardy violation occurred as a ......
  • Wilson v. State, No. 89-778
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 29, 1992
    ...was a separate, independent criminal act apart from the strong-arm robbery which occurred inside the hotel room. See Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft auto As ......
  • Kipping v. State, No. 95-04795
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 21, 1997
    ...reasons unless coupled Page 582 with another valid reason. See Ready v. State, 657 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Therefore, there is no need to analyze these two factors unless there exists another valid basis for departure in the remainin......
  • Hayes v. State, No. 99-566
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 22, 1999
    ...the victim's car, there is a sufficient separation of time and place to treat the auto theft as a separate crime. See Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); accord Wilson v. State, 608 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).2 The auto theft occurs not upon the 748 So.2d 1045 t......
  • 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