HENRY CHARLES HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Holmes was convicted of two counts of armed robbery for taking money from both a cashier and supervisor during a single supermarket robbery. The court affirmed, holding that the taking of money from two different custodians constituted two separate and distinct robberies despite occurring in one criminal episode.
The court held that taking money from the supervisor in the office and taking money from the cash register till in the actual custody of the cashier were sufficiently distinct and different factual events to support two separate convictions for armed robbery.
[1] Two separate armed robbery convictions are supported when a defendant takes money from the custody of a cashier and subsequently takes money from the custody of a supervi…
[2] The crux of the offense of robbery is the taking of property from another's custody.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We hold that the crux of the offense of robbery is a taking and that the taking of the money from the custody of the supervisor in the office and the taking of the money from the cash register till that was in the actual custody of the cashier, were sufficiently distinct and different factual events as to support two separate convictions.”
The court's holding establishing that multiple takings from different custodians constitute separate robberies even within a single criminal episode.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes entered a grocery supermarket with a shotgun and marched the cashier to the store office where the supervisor was counting money. He ordered th…
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 Single Criminal Transaction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The question in this case is whether or not a single criminal transaction or episode constituted one or two separate and distinct armed robberies.
Defendant entered a grocery supermarket with a shotgun and marched the cashier from his cash register to the store office where the store supervisor was counting money. Defendant then ordered the cashier to return to his cash register and get the money from it. The defendant then directed the supervisor to put the money she was counting in the office into a paper bag. The cashier then returned to the office and handed the cash register till to the supervisor who then placed the money from the till into the paper bag which the defendant took.
On these facts the defendant was convicted of one count of armed robbery as to the cashier and a second count of armed robbery as to the supervisor. The defendant argues that the facts support but one count of armed robbery because all the money was owned by the one supermarket, the supervisor was the overall custodian of the funds and was the one that actually put all of the money into the paper bag and that the taking of the money from both the office and the cash register till were all part of a “single transaction” and one criminal intent in the mind of the defendant.
We hold that the crux of the offense of robbery is a taking and that the taking of the money from the custody of the supervisor in the office and the taking of the money from the cash register till that was in the actual custody of the cashier, were sufficiently distinct and different factual events as to support two separate convictions.1 See Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983). See also Morales v. State, 451 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . For a general consideration of the divisibility of one criminal transaction or episode into two or more separate and distinct factual events each constituting a separate and distinctly different criminal offense, see the dissent in Baker v. State, 425 So. 2d 36 at 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), quashed, in part, State v. Baker, Baker v. State, 456 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…two or more related offenses, the charge of every other related offense must be dismissed on the defendant’s motion. . Palmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), aff’d. in part; rev'd. in part, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). . Holmes v. State, 453 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), affirmed, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 607 (Fla…
-
Collins v. State, 489 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
-
Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…facts supporting each charge must be shown by the allegations in the charging document. See Miles v. State, 418 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), and the dissent in Collins v. State, 489 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . See, e.g., Holmes v. State, 453 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). . Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). . Of course, if each offense does not have at least one element .not required by the other the two statutory offenses are substantively "the same…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Baker, 456 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1984)
- Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983)
- Baker v. State, 425 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Morales v. State, 451 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)