Oliver v. State, 5D01-3510.
Decision Date | 11 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 5D01-3510.,5D01-3510. |
Citation | 842 So.2d 259 |
Parties | Tony Deramous OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and-Meghan Ann Collins, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
We grant the state's motion for reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion and reissue this opinion in its place.
Oliver appeals his judgment and sentence for robbery, battery and petit theft. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
He argues that he should be re-sentenced on the robbery charge because the habitual violent offender statute is unconstitutional.1 We affirm his sentence for robbery because the unconstitutionality of the habitual violent offender statute was cured retroactively. See Hersey v. State, 831 So.2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002),
which relied on the reasoning employed in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). However, as in Hersey, we certify the question of whether the curative statute passed in 2002 should be applied retroactively to the offenses Oliver committed in 2000.
Oliver also argues that the principles of double jeopardy bar his dual convictions for petit theft and robbery. His convictions stemmed from an incident in which he entered an Amoco convenience store/ gas station, and began to buy a four-pack of wine coolers. When the clerk rang up the price of the coolers, Oliver changed his mind, and requested beer rather than wine. He went to get beer while the clerk voided the sale. Once the clerk rang up the beer, the cash drawer opened, and Oliver reached over the counter. A struggle ensued between Oliver and the clerk. Oliver stuck the clerk, grabbed the cash drawer, and ran out of the store carrying the cash drawer.
It is clear from the information and proofs offered at trial that the robbery and petit theft charges were based on the taking of the cash drawer containing cash from the clerk during the same incident. Based on current case law and precedent from this court, Oliver's claims that double jeopardy should bar dual convictions for both robbery and petit theft of the same property in the same incident from the same clerk, are valid. See Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994)
( ); Elozar v. State, 825 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ( ); Sessler v. State, 740 So.2d 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ( ).
The state directed our attention to Taylor v. State, 751 So.2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So.2d 161 (Fla. 2000), which is controlling. In Taylor, a defendant was convicted of robbery with a firearm, grand theft of a vehicle, and grand theft. This court held that it was improper to convict for both the grand theft and armed robbery because the charges...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mixson v. State, 1D02-2408.
...similar results. See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 607 So.2d 422 (Fla.1992); Johnson v. State, 597 So.2d 798 (Fla.1992); Oliver v. State, 842 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Beaudry v. State, the defendant stole a car containing computer equipment and was convicted of grand theft motor vehicl......
-
Ward v. State
...and robbery of the same property taken at the same time from the same person, as was conceded by the state); see also Oliver v. State, 842 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (double jeopardy barred dual convictions for robbery and petit theft that were based on the taking of a cash drawer contai......