GERALD HARRIS, 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 did not support a robbery conviction as the taking of property was not linked to force or threat during the sexual battery. The court also held that the sentence was improper due to a departure from sentencing guidelines.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, sexual battery, and robbery. The robbery charge was based on the victim's discovery of missing money and jewelry …
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 Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse appellant’s conviction as to count III, robbery, and reverse the sentence as to all counts. In all other respects, appellant’s convictions on counts I and II, burglary and sexual battery, are affirmed.
The robbery charge is founded on the victim’s discovery subsequent to the sexual battery, and after the appellant had left, that her money and jewelry were missing. The sexual battery occurred in the victim’s bedroom. On the night of the attack the money was taken from a purse in the living room. She realized that the jewelry was missing from her dresser two days later. Clearly, there is no evidence in the record linking the taking of the money and jewelry with any force or threat of force used in the commission of the sexual battery.
To distinguish the offense of robbery from the offense of theft, force or threat must be used in an effort to obtain or retain the victim’s property. Cf. State v. Baker, 540 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Where the victim, at the time, is not even aware of the taking, it is not a taking by force or putting in fear. See S. W. v. State, 513 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
With respect to the sentences, the appel-lee concedes that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines. See Hernandez v. State, 575 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1991); State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1986). Upon remand, resentencing shall be within the guidelines.
DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1986)
- Hernandez v. State, 575 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1991)
- S.W. v. State, 513 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Hodin v. Hodin, 540 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Baker, 540 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)