EDDIE JOE RICHARDSON, 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.
Eddie Joe Richardson was convicted of robbery with a weapon and assault arising from a convenience store robbery. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed his robbery conviction but reversed the assault conviction, holding that assault is a necessarily included lesser offense of robbery with a weapon and therefore cannot support a separate conviction for the same conduct.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery with a weapon and assault for a single criminal act because assault is a necessarily included lesser offense of robbery with a weapon. Therefore, Richardson's assault conviction must be reversed while his robbery conviction is affirmed.
[1] A conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a necessarily included lesser offense of robbery with a firearm.
[2] A defendant cannot be convicted of both a greater offense and a necessarily included lesser offense for a single criminal act.
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“aggravated assault with a deadly, weapon is a necessarily included lesser included offense of robbery with a firearm. Therefore, Wright cannot be convicted of both the greater offense and a necessarily included offense for one criminal act.”
Establishes the core legal principle that dual convictions for a greater offense and its necessarily included lesser offense violate double jeopardy principles.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson robbed a convenience store while pointing a pistol (which turned out to be an air gun) at the clerk. He was charged with robbery while carr…
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 Doctrine Of Lenity cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
This is an appeal from judgment and sentence for the crime of robbery with a weapon, sections 812.13(1) and 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), and assault, section 784.011, Florida Statutes (1985). .
Appellant robbed a convenience store, pointing a pistol1 at the clerk in the process. He was charged, by information, in count one with committing robbery, section 812.13(1), Florida Statutes (1985), while carrying a deadly weapon, section 812.-13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) and in count two with aggravated assault, section 784.021(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). He was convicted of the two “lesser crimes” stated above.
Appellant argues that assault is a necessarily included lesser offense of robbery with a weapon and that he cannot therefore be convicted of both crimes. He’s right. This court in Wright v. State, 519 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) on a factually similar matter stated:
These dual convictions would have been proper under State v. Baker, 452 So. 2d 927 (Fla.1984) ...
**
In 1986, however, the Supreme Court overruled Baker sub silentio in Royal v. State, 490 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1986) by holding that aggravated assault with a deadly, weapon is a necessarily included lesser included offense of robbery with a firearm. Therefore, Wright cannot be convicted of both the greater offense and a necessarily included offense for one criminal act.
See also Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987) on the doctrine of lenity.
Wright also cites Hall v. State, 517 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1988) which applied Carawan holding that conviction for both armed robbery and possession of a firearm while committing a felony cannot stand for the single act of displaying or carrying a firearm while committing a robbery.
It necessarily follows, then, that appellant’s conviction for the crimes of robbery with a weapon, sections 812.13(1) and 812.-13(2)(b), and assault, section 784.011, cannot stand inasmuch as, under the factual circumstances here presented, assault is a necessarily lesser included offense of robbery with a weapon. The conviction for robbery with a weapon is affirmed; the conviction for assault is reversed.
The second point raised by the appellant is that the trial court erred in imposing statutorily required court costs ($25.00) without affording him an opportunity to be heard. We find appellant’s position on this point to be without merit and affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment and sentence. See Jones v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for resentencing.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. . The “pistol” proved to be an "air gun” apparently accounting for the jury's finding of guilt on the two "lesser included" offenses defined in the trial courts instructions on the law given the jury at the close of the case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…43 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Edwards v. State, 529 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 539 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1988); Hogan v. State, 529 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Neal v. State, 527 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Richardson v. State, 523 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Wright v. State, 519 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). . But see Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1977); Martin v. State, 574 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Harris v. St…
-
Neal v. State, 527 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…hree convictions, being the armed robbery, is affirmed. See State v. Barton, 523 So. 2d 152 (Fla.1988). The convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon in the commission of a felony are reversed on authority of Richardson v. State, 523 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Wright v. State, 519 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Hall v. State, 517 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1988); Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987); Brown v. State, 529 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (robbery with a firearm…
-
Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…in point: Crayton v. State, 536 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Willingham v. State, 535 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Neal v. State, 527 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Cardwell v. State, 525 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Richardson v. State, 523 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Wright v. State, 519 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Heath v. State, 532 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Hartley v. State, 531 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Neal v. State, 531 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rose v. State, 530…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- Hall v. State, 517 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Baker, 452 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1984)
- Royal v. State, 490 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1986)
- Wright v. State, 519 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Isiah Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)