Ryder v. State, 84-748
| Decision Date | 14 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-748,84-748 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 648,464 So.2d 1324 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 648 Walter Allen RYDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Margene A. Roper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is another case involving a departure from a guideline sentence.
Appellant robbed a bank telling the teller "I'm a desperate man--Get me the money--This is a holdup." Appellant pled guilty to robbery (§ 812.13(1), Fla.Stat.), not armed robbery (§ 812.13(2)(a) or (b), Fla.Stat.). The recommended guideline sentence was "any non-state prison sanction." The trial court stated, The trial court imposed a departure sentence of thirty months imprisonment.
When a robber says "this is a holdup" without brandishing a weapon, there is some implication that the robber has a weapon or other means of applying violence. That implication is the very purpose of making that statement. The crime of robbery itself requires a taking by "force, violence, assault or putting in fear." One cannot commit a simple (unarmed) robbery without at least making an assault [a threat to do violence coupled with an apparent ability to do so (§ 784.011(1), Fla.Stat.) ], or inducing fear in some manner. All robberies involve the possibility of harm to someone, the victim, the robber or third persons. That is the very reason robbery is an offense against the public. Appellant did not actually use force or violence but only implied its possibility. As robberies go, this was a less dangerous and hence less atrocious type of unarmed robbery. There is absolutely no evidence that appellant "carried" a weapon or firearm at the time of the robbery (see § 812.13(2)(a) and (b), Fla.Stat.). Appellant's assertion at sentencing that he did not carry a weapon was unchallenged. Robbers commonly merely imply the possession of a weapon in order to bolster their threat. That implication cannot amount to proof of the possession. The sentencing guidelines rules and statutes require clear and convincing proof of possession of a weapon--mere implication does not meet that standard. Accordingly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jolly
...upon any person who is not a participant in the crime" commits aggravated robbery. Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. 515.020.7 See also Ryder v. State, 464 So.2d 1324, 1325 (Fla.App.1985) (stating that "[r]obbers commonly merely imply the possession of a weapon in order to bolster their threat," however, "[......
-
Fletcher v. State, 84-865
...guns and defendant had opened his shirt and displayed what she thought was a gun butt); T.T. v. State, supra; compare Ryder v. State, 464 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (Robber's statement, "This is a holdup," without evidence that defendant in fact had a weapon, cannot amount to clear and ......
-
Butler v. State
...of a weapon in order to bolster their threat. [However, t]hat implication cannot amount to proof of the possession." Ryder v. State, 464 So.2d 1324, 1325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Thus, in Bates v. State, 561 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the defendant was charged with robbery while carrying "a......
-
Hubert v. State, 85-1374
...754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Wiggins v. State, 476 So.2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 598 (Fla.1986); Ryder v. State, 464 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). 1 Fla.R.Crim.P. ...