WILLIAM LEE TAYLOR, 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.
William Lee Taylor appeals his convictions and consecutive sentences for armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and unlawful firearm possession following a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial comments, evidentiary admissions, sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping, or sentencing guidelines compliance.
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding: (1) the prosecutor's and judge's comments were proper; (2) the shirt and gloves were relevant and properly admissible; (3) sufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction based on the confinement and forced labor; and (4) the 288-year sentence imposed was within sentencing guidelines as it was less than the life sentence called for by the guidelines.
[1] Prosecuting attorney and trial judge comments found to be proper.
[2] Shirt and gloves admitted into evidence were relevant and admissible.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The evidence shows that the defendant, subsequent to committing a robbery in a drive-in food store, confined the victim in the store bathroom and later forced the victim to come out of the bathroom and wait on store customers — all in an obvious effort to lessen the risk of detection as to the robbery which the defendant had just previously committed.”
Establishes the facts supporting the kidnapping conviction and the court's reasoning that sufficient evidence proved kidnapping.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor committed a robbery at a drive-in food store. After the robbery, he confined the victim in the store bathroom and later forced the victim out o…
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 Judicial Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant William Lee Taylor appeals multiple judgments of conviction and consecutive sentences for armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault and-unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, which were entered upon an adverse jury verdict. Four points are raised on appeal; we conclude that none of these points present reversible error and affirm.
First, the defendant complains about certain comments by the prosecuting attorney and trial judge. We have reviewed these comments and find them entirely proper. See Washington v. State, 432 So. 2d 44, 47 (Fla.1983); David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla.1979); Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 704, 706-07 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Essix v. State, 347 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1978).
Second, the defendant complains about the admission in evidence of a shirt and gloves. The evidence was relevant and properly admissible. See Pesaplastic v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 750 F. 2d 1516, 1524 (11th Cir.1985); Prior v. Oglesby, 50 Fla. 248, 250, 39 So. 593, 594 (1905); Stettler v. Huggins, 134 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
Third, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for kidnapping. We cannot agree. The evidence shows that the defendant, subsequent to committing a robbery in a drive-in food store, confined the victim in the store bathroom and later forced the victim to come out of the bathroom and wait on store customers — all in an obvious effort to lessen the risk of detection as to the robbery which the defendant had just previously committed. A kidnapping was therefore proven below. Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 966 (Fla.1983); Dowdell v. State, 415 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983). Fourth, the defendant contends that the sentences imposed violate the sentencing guidelines under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701. We cannot agree. The sentencing guidelines, without dispute, called for a life sentence in this case — and the trial judge imposed sentences totalling 288 years imprisonment which is less than a life sentence and therefore within the sentencing guidelines. See Harmon v. State, 438 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1983); Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978); Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 448 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The judgments of conviction and sentences appealed from are in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…k to cross the store to open a cash register is not a kidnapping; locking him in a cooler to facilitate escape is. 219 Kan. at 216, 547 P. 2d at 731. The application of these principles continues to prove difficult in practice. In Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the defendant’s conviction for robbery, aggravated assault and kidnapping was affirmed. There the defendant, subsequent to robbing a convenience store, confined the clerk to a bathroom and then forced the victim to wait on custom…
-
Biggs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ection); Panno v. State, 517 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)(defendant’s acts in forcing two teenaged girls who were sunbathing to go into their house, shoving one to the ground along the way, were not merely incidental to burglary); Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(kidnaping proven where subsequent to committing robbery in drive-in food store, defendant confined victim in store bathroom and later forced victim to come out and wait on customers, in effort to lessen risk of detection as to rob…
-
Sanborn v. State, 513 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…counsel was misinformed as to the law, he nevertheless preserved the error for appellate disposition. We find no merit in the remaining point. Harmon v. State, 438 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1983); Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978); Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Vileta v. State, 454 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Contra Blackshear v. State, 480 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), appeal after remand, 513 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). For these reasons, we reverse the kidnapping convictions…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- LeDuc v. Florida, 444 U.S. 885 (U.S. 1979)
- Alphonso Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1978)
- David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1979)
- Pesaplastic v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 750 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Washington v. State, 432 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983)
- Harmon v. State, 438 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1983)
- Prior v. Oglesby, 50 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1905)
- Elario Suraz Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)