DAVID SANTIAGO, 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.
The court held that the evidence of force was sufficient for a robbery conviction but reversed the grand theft conviction due to insufficient allegations and prior precedent. The court also found the trial court erred in failing to consider statutory sentencing criteria.
[1] The use of even slight force or violence in taking property from another's person or presence is sufficient to support a conviction for robbery.
[2] A conviction for grand theft cannot stand when the property taken was valued at $100 or more and the taking was accomplished with force, as this would support a robbery c…
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 intelligenceSantiago was convicted of robbery and grand theft after tearing necklaces from a victim's neck. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for robbery…
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 Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
While on probation for a robbery charge, Santiago was charged with burglary of a conveyance and robbery. He was convicted of robbery and grand theft (as a lesser included offense of burglary) and concurrently sentenced on each charge to four years’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation.
The current charges stemmed from an incident in which Santiago reached into the victim’s car and tore two gold necklaces from around her neck and departed the scene, leaving the victim with a few scratch marks and some redness around her neck.
Santiago contends the evidence of force was insufficient to support a conviction of robbery. We disagree. The facts of this case, unlike picking a pocket or snatching a purse .without any force or violence, show sufficient force, be it ever so little, to support robbery. See McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976).
It is further argued by Santiago that this record does not support his conviction for grand theft as a lesser included offense. Theft was not charged under the burglary count but, rather, only an intent to commit theft, see State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978), and there was no alie-gation in either count in the information that the value of the property taken was valued at $100 or more. Moreover, it was recently held in Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), that taking property valued at $100 or more, with force, cannot support convictions for both robbery and grand theft. Therefore, we hold the conviction for grand theft must be reversed.
The only other point that needs to be treated is Santiago’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to consider in writing each of the criteria set forth in section 39.111(6)(c), Florida Statutes. We agree.
Accordingly, the conviction for robbery is affirmed; the conviction for grand theft is reversed; and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with section 39.111(6)(c) and (d).
ANSTEAD, J., and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Proko v. State, 566 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…y could conclude that the defendant used some amount of force to restrain her. That is sufficient to establish forcible restraint. Cf. McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976); S.W. v. State, 513 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Santiago v. State, 497 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (when a thief uses any degree of force to obtain possession of the property, the taking is a robbery). The essence of false imprisonment is the act of depriving the victim of personal liberty or freedom of movement for any lengt…
-
S.W. v. State, 513 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…order to effect possession thereof, Mims v. State, 342 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), or where the defendant tore two gold necklaces from around a woman’s neck with such force as to leave scratch marks and redness around her neck, Santiago v. State, 497 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), or where a defendant grabbed ten dollars from a store clerk’s hand and then physically held the store clerk while an accomplice emptied the store cash register. Larkins v. State, 476 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). B Florida…
-
Lattimore v. State, 571 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…DCA 1981); Ponder v. State, 221 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see also Bates v. State, 465 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla.1985) (slight victim injury; robbery proved), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873, 108 S.Ct. 212, 98 L.Ed.2d 163 (1987); Santiago v. State, 497 So. 2d 975, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (same). Second, we conclude that the defendant’s theft of the victim’s automobile was a separate, independent criminal act apart from the strong-arm robbery in the victim’s house during which the defendant secured, among o…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- McCLOUD v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)
- Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)