State v. Thompson
| Citation | 413 So.2d 757 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 60610,60610 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Terrell THOMPSON, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
Geoffrey C. Fleck and Richard A. Sharpstein of Weiner, Robbins, Tunkey & Ross, Miami, for respondent.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported as Thompson v. State, 397 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We find direct conflict with our decision in State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981). See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The issue in the instant case concerns the constitutionality of multiple punishments arising out of a single incident, one sentence for first-degree felony murder and one sentence for attempted robbery, when the attempted robbery is a necessary element of the murder charge. This Court held in Hegstrom that under these circumstances it is permissible to convict a defendant of both felony murder and the underlying felony but that only one sentence, for the greater offense, is proper.
In the instant case, respondent was convicted and sentenced for attempted robbery and felony murder. The district court upheld the felony murder conviction and sentence but reversed the conviction and sentence for attempted robbery, holding that under State v. Pinder, 375 So.2d 836 (Fla.1979), one could not be convicted and sentenced for both felony murder and the underlying felony. In this appeal, the state first seeks that we review the evidence and find that respondent was appropriately convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, not felony murder. We reject this contention. Again, as in Hegstrom, we decline to accept this case for review on one basis and then reweigh the evidence reviewed by the district court in order to avoid ruling on the real issue that brought the case to us.
The state next asks that we, in any event, reinstate respondent's conviction for attempted robbery in accordance with Hegstrom. Respondent concedes that ordinarily our decision in Hegstrom would control and that an affirmance of his conviction for attempted robbery would be proper. But he argues that, because his crime and conviction occurred before our Hegstrom decision issued, that decision cannot apply, and that reinstatement of the attempted robbery conviction would constitute an ex post facto violation. We are unpersuaded by this argument. The United States Supreme Court has addressed this issue in Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977), in which it said:
The Ex Post Facto Clause is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriquez v. State, 82-570
...S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).4 State v. Hegstrom, 401 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1981); State v. Monroe, 406 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1981); State v. Thompson, 413 So.2d 757 (Fla.1982).5 Paragraph (1) of section 812.014 defines the crime of theft as follows:(1) A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly obt......
-
Baker v. State, 80-748
...... The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both convictions but reversed the sentence for the lesser included offense. The Hegstrom case was again . Page 39 . reaffirmed in State v. Thompson, 413 So.2d 757 (Fla.1982). . In Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982), the Florida Supreme Court rejected the argument that the determination of a lesser included offense, from a constitutional consideration, should focus on "the variables of evidentiary proof." Citing ......
-
Deehl v. Knox, s. 81-592
...severely limited its application, no claim that it cannot be retroactively applied to his actions could be accepted. See, State v. Thompson, 413 So.2d 757 (Fla.1982); compare, Cohen v. Katsaris, 530 F.Supp. 1092 (N.D.Fla.1982) (expanded judicial interpretation may not be applied to previous......
-
Tien Wang v. State
...Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259 (1939); Thompson v. State, 397 So.2d 354 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), modified sub nom., State v. Thompson, 413 So.2d 757 (Fla.1982); Hines v. State, 227 So.2d 334 (Fla.1st DCA 1969); Weaver v. State, 220 So.2d 53 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 913 (Fl......