Sheppard v. State, 89-63
| Decision Date | 05 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-63,89-63 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2345 Timothy L. SHEPPARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Sheppard appeals from his convictions and sentences for robbery and battery. He raises two points on appeal. We find merit only in his second point--that he is being twice punished for the same conduct by separate convictions for strong armed robbery and battery.
The evidence shows that Sheppard pushed his victim to the ground, wrestled with her for her purse and, having pulled the purse from her grasp, fled. The offense of theft is escalated to robbery when force is employed. In this case the force was the pushing and wrestling with the victim for possession of the purse--in other words, the battery.
Battery is a category two lesser included offense of robbery. 1 In an apparent response to Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987), the Legislature adopted chapter 88-131, section 7, Laws of Florida section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1987) clarifying its intent in sentencing in cases of multiple convictions. Chapter 88-131 outlines three categories of offenses in which separate sentences are impermissible. The first two categories do not apply here. The third reads:
3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.
The state, citing Holtsclaw v. State, 542 So.2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), argues that the pushing down of the victim was one battery and the wrestling or swinging her back and forth to separate her from her pocketbook was the second battery or "force" that escalated the theft of the pocketbook to robbery. To accept this argument one would have to theorize that (forgetting the robbery for a moment) the act of pushing the victim to the ground and wrestling with her would have supported two counts of battery. The force applied here was one continuous act of force with one purpose in mind--that of relieving the victim of her pocketbook. In Holtsclaw, the acts of violence, although strung together in time, were in fact separate and individual. There the defendant first struck his wife with his fist; then secured a gun and touched her with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...robbery and the lesser included offense of simple battery. The Second District, agreeing with our earlier decision in Sheppard v. State, 549 So.2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), noted: "The force that was used to take the victim's purse and was necessary to constitute the offense of robbery was t......
-
Cave v. State
...of aggravated battery. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses. We disapprove Rowe and Sheppard v. State, 549 So.2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), to the extent they are inconsistent with this It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDONALD, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. BAR......
-
Cave v. State, 89-1694
...this position. See Rowe v. State, 574 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hall v. State, 549 So.2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Sheppard v. State, 549 So.2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). However, for the reasons stated below, we Cave acknowledges the amendments to section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, fou......
-
Rowe v. State, 89-01251
...of simple battery. We conclude that the factual circumstances here are not materially distinguishable from those in Sheppard v. State, 549 So.2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We agree with the Sheppard court that under such circumstances the battery conviction, a category two lesser included off......