JIM HEARNS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jim Hearns appeals his convictions for six offenses arising from a single criminal episode, challenging the imposition of separate sentences for each count. The court affirmed most convictions and sentences but reversed the separate sentence for display of a deadly weapon, finding it a lesser included offense of the attempted robbery charge.
Separate sentences were proper for trespass, false imprisonment, attempted robbery, assault, and attempted battery because each offense required proof beyond what was required for attempted robbery and was completed separately or prior to the attempted robbery. However, the separate sentence for display of a deadly weapon was improper because it constitutes a lesser included offense of the attempted robbery charge and falls within the statutory exception.
[1] Separate sentences may be imposed for offenses committed during a single criminal episode, provided that the offenses are not lesser included offenses.
[2] The commission of attempted robbery is not a lesser included offense of false imprisonment when the restraint continues throughout the entire episode.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during said criminal episode, and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.”
The controlling statute governing sentencing for multiple offenses in a single criminal episode, which permits separate sentences except for lesser included offenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 23, 1976, victim Eileen Rorick was accosted at her car by Hearns, who grabbed and shoved her into the vehicle. Hearns restrained her, dema…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attempted Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Jim Hearns, appeals his conviction and sentences for (1) trespass, (2) false imprisonment, (3) attempted robbery, (4) assault, (5) display of a weapon during the commission of a criminal offense, and (6) attempted battery.
Hearns alleges as reversible error the imposition of separate sentences1 for each of the offenses in that the charges arose out of the same criminal episode. The salient facts are as follows:
The victim, Eileen Rorick, testified she left her office on the afternoon of December 23, 1976 and went to her car in the parking lot. As she was about to enter, Hearns grabbed her and shoved her into the car. Holding her down, he asked her how much money she had. She answered she did not have any and then began to scream. Hearns struck her in the mouth and told her not to scream and at the same time was holding her down on the front seat. Nevertheless, Rorick screamed again and Hearns held up an object which she thought was a knife 2 to her throat and ordered her not to scream. When she tried to scream a third time, the object in his hand broke and he told her to move over and let him behind the wheel. Rorick managed to get one hand loose and started to honk the horn. Hearns fled.
The controlling statute with regard to this sentencing issue is Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.):
“(4) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during said criminal episode, and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.” [Emphasis supplied] Hearns essentially argues that since the proof at trial for the counts of false imprisonment, assault, display of a weapon during the commission of a criminal offense and battery involve proof of the attempted robbery, these counts are lesser included offenses of the attempted robbery count and, therefore, fall within the exception to Section 775.021(4).
We find no merit in this argument except as to the display of a deadly weapon charge.
The proof of the attempted robbery charge was not part of the proof of the false imprisonment charge. When Hearns demanded money from Rorick and she replied she had no money, the attempted robbery was complete. Likewise, the false imprisonment offense was complete when he initially restrained Rorick and continued to restrain her throughout the entire episode. Similarly, with respect to the battery conviction, Hearns struck Rorick after he demanded money and after she screamed the first time and, therefore, was not part of the attempted robbery. In addition, Hearns assaulted Rorick after he initially displayed the bottle and while he held it to her throat prior to her third scream. The attempted robbery having been accomplished separately and/or prior to these other counts, separate sentences were proper. Cf. State v. Heisterman, 343 So. 2d 1272 (Fla.1977); Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1975).
Nevertheless, we find error in imposing a separate sentence on the charge of displaying a deadly weapon. Hearns was charged separately with attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon (a piece of glass or broken bottle). The display of a deadly weapon, being a lesser included offense of the attempted robbery charge, falls within the exception to Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.). See White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979); Spikes v. State, 375 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Accordingly, we set aside the sentence for display of a deadly weapon during the commission of a criminal offense. In all other respects the judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
. As to counts 1, 4 and 6 Hearns received 30-day concurrent sentences and as to counts 2. 3 and 5 concurrent terms of 5 years probation.
. In reality, a bottle.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d result that felony murder would be precluded in all instances where the killing followed the “completion” of the felony. The rule of technical termination has, however, been used to separate the crimes for sentencing purposes. See Hearns v. State, 378 So. 2d 70 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). . Under this analysis, kidnapping or false imprisonment, themselves continuous crimes, must always support a felony murder when the killing occurs during the victim’s captivity. And where the death of a kidnapped infant occurs as…
-
Bartee v. State, 401 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…factual events and therefore “separate and distinct” offenses in fact. See, e. g., Johnson v. State, 366 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1978); Walker v. State, 386 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bass v. State, 380 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Hearns v. State, 378 So. 2d 70 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). As to whether the taking at one time of multiple objects owned by various persons constitutes a single larceny offense or multiple offenses, see Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1951). . This appears to be the concern of Florid…
-
Borges v. State, 394 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…. . The original version omitted the word “committed” which we have emphasized. This omission was corrected in the August 2, 1977 amendment. . In a case with facts similar to White, we prefer the reasoning of the Third District in Hearns v. State, 378 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); however the crimes in Hearns occurred after the adoption of the statute. We would also refer to Justice Alderman’s dissent in Johnson v. State, 366 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1978).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979)
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Heisterman, 343 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1977)
- Spikes v. State, 375 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)