Moore v. State, 71--743
| Decision Date | 14 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--743,71--743 |
| Citation | 259 So.2d 179 |
| Parties | Richard MOORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward D. Gewirtz, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant was tried upon a two count information which charged separate incidents of robbery and attempted robbery. He was tried before a jury and found not guilty of the charge of robbery, but was found guilty of attempted robbery and was sentenced to five years in the state prison. By motion prior to trial and at the time of trial, appellant moved to have the charges severed. The substantial question on this appeal is whether or not the court erred in denying the motions for severance.
It is appellant's position that since the incidents with which he was charged were separate criminal acts that he was prejudiced by their trial together and that this is particularly true because he was acquitted of the robbery charge. The joinder of separate offenses is permitted by CrPR 3.140(d)(4), 33 F.S.A. which is as follows:
The question for us to determine is whether or not the trial court committed prejudicial error in holding that the offenses here tried together were 'acts or transactions connected together.' An examination of the record in this case shows that there is strong evidence linking the two offenses charged in the information. Involved in both incidents were two Negro males riding in a 'white' car. Both incidents involved a man with a gun, who proceeded to rob or attempt to rob his victims. Both incidents occurred on the same night, January 16, 1971, in the same general vicinity, approximately fifteen minutes apart.
All the facts are consistent with the hypothesis that the two events are 'connected together'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macklin v. State, 78-11
...191 (Fla.1969); Hall v. State, 66 So.2d 863 (Fla.1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 931, 74 S.Ct. 321, 98 L.Ed. 422 (1954); Moore v. State, 259 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Where joinder is improper under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150(a), upon timely motion under Florida Rule of Crim......
-
Finlay v. State, 82-532
...1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Rodgers v. State, 325 So.2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 342 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1977); Moore v. State, 259 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), sufficient to justify joinder. McMullen v. State, 405 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.152 committee note (......
-
Panzavecchia v. State
...it shall sustain his burden to show it represented an abuse of discretion. Bretti v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 6; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 179; Demps v. State, Fla.1973, 272 So.2d 803. In denying the defendant's motion for severance of the offenses the trial court necess......
-
Nozza v. State, 73--590
...The acts or transactions charged in the information were connected together within the meaning of the rule. See Moore v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 179; Hughes v. State, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d Finally, appellant argues the sentence imposed, being the maximum possible sentence, was exce......