STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD B. BING, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a single taking of property cannot support dual convictions for both robbery and grand theft, reversing its earlier approval of dual convictions and adopting the rule from Carawan v. State that robbery and grand theft address the same evil and therefore violate double jeopardy principles absent clear legislative intent to impose multiple punishments.
A single taking of property valued at $100 or more with force cannot support dual convictions for robbery and grand theft. Robbery and grand theft address the same evil—the taking of property without consent—and the legislature's probable intent was to provide enhanced penalties for aggravating factors, not to multiply punishments.
[1] Robbery and grand theft address the same evil, the taking of property without consent.
[2] Where statutory provisions address the same evil and legislative intent is unclear, multiple punishments are generally not intended.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“where the accused is charged under two statutory provisions that manifestly address the same evil and no clear evidence of legislative intent exists, the most reasonable conclusion usually is that the legislature did not intend to impose multiple punishments”
Establishes the test for determining when dual convictions violate double jeopardy principles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBing was convicted of both grand theft and robbery for a single taking of property valued at $100 or more, using force. The Fifth District Court of Ap…
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 Dual Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), in which the district court reversed Bing’s grand theft conviction relying on Rodriquez v. State, 443 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Can one taking of property valued at $100.00 or more, with force, support dual convictions for robbery and grand theft, or is the degree of theft irrelevant to double jeopardy considerations absent an indication of contrary legislative intent?
Bing, 492 So. 2d at 833. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Rodriquez was convicted of grand theft and robbery for a single taking of property. The fifth district court reversed his grand theft conviction, finding it a lesser included offense of robbery. We disapproved Rodriquez, holding that robbery and grand theft are separate offenses which will support dual convictions. State v. Rodriquez, 500 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1986).
We recently receded from Rodriquez in Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987), finding that “where the accused is charged under two statutory provisions that manifestly address the same evil and no clear evidence of legislative intent exists, the most reasonable conclusion usually is that the legislature did not intend to impose multiple punishments.” Id., at 168. We found that robbery and grand theft address essentially the same evil, i.e., the taking of property without consent, and held that “the legislature’s probable intent was only to provide for a more severe penalty when a single theft was accompanied by an additional aggravating factor, not to multiply punishments because other aggravating factors also concurred.” Id., at 170.
Accordingly, on the authority of Cara-wan, we answer the certified question in the negative. One taking of property valued at $100.00 or more, with force, cannot support dual convictions for robbery and grand theft. We approve the district court’s decision for the reasons stated herein.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion.
SHAW, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissent to Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Rodriquez, 500 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1986)
- Rodriquez v. State, 443 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)