BRIAN KEITH LUNDY, 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.
A conviction for armed robbery of a second victim is reversed when the taking of property was from a single victim, even if another person was also threatened.
[1] A single taking of property from a safe, even if two individuals are present and put in fear, constitutes only one robbery conviction if there is no evidence of intent to…
[2] A conviction for armed robbery of a dining room supervisor is reversed when the only forceful taking involved cash from a safe, which was taken from the assistant manager…
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 intelligenceThe defendant was the getaway driver for a series of armed robberies. In one incident, an accomplice threatened two employees, but only took money fro…
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 Elements Of Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Brian Keith Lundy appeals his judgments and sentences for six counts of armed robbery. He raises four grounds for reversal, only one of which has merit.
Mr. Lundy was the “get-away” driver in a series of armed robberies. He contends that one of his convictions for armed robbery must be reversed because there was only one taking, although it was from two individuals. The record reveals that Mr. Lundy’s accomplice, Mr. Rodriguez, entered a restaurant, pointed a gun at the dining room supervisor and forced her into the office. Once in the office, Mr. Rodriguez pointed the gun at the assistant manager, who was sitting on the floor in front of the safe. Mr. Rodriguez ordered the assistant manager to give him the money from the safe, which she did. Counts three and four of the information charged Mr. Lundy with armed robbery of both the assistant manager and the dining room supervisor. We agree that Mr. Lundy’s conviction for armed robbery of the dining room supervisor, as charged in count four, must be reversed. The only forceful taking involved the cash from the safe, which was taken from the assistant manager. There is no evidence that the defendants intended to take property from two people. Taylor v. State, 589 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 608 So. 2d 804 (Fla.1992). See also Hopps v. State, 594 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (single robbery occurs when robber confronts couple and takes wife’s purse containing husband’s property). Cf. Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983) (two convictions for robbery upheld, although defendant took money belonging to single owner, where he put two employees in fear and took from two separate cash registers; thus, events involved separate criminal intent and were separate in time).
Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Lundy’s conviction and sentence for armed robbery charged in count four of the information. His other convictions and the five remaining concurrent life sentences are unaffected by this opinion and are affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 97 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…that one of the convictions for robbery be vacated. See Hussain v. State, 67 So. 3d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (double jeopardy violated where defendant convicted of robbery of two store managers where only one taking occurred); Lundy v. State, 614 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (where defendant pointed gun at both dining room supervisor and assistant manager but took money only from one safe, convictions for robbery of both supervisor and manager violated double jeopardy); Taylor v. State, 589 So. 2d 99…
-
Brown v. State, 1 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…five are based on two separate robberies because there were two separate victims. This was error. A single taking from one register supports only one charge, and the presence of two employees does not transform one robbery into two. Lundy v. State, 614 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing one of two charges for armed robbery after finding only one taking even after defendant pointed a gun at two different employees of the restaurant); see also Nesbitt v. State, 966 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“If…
-
Harvey v. State, 693 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…oved the money and gave it to Harvey. Therefore, no separate and distinct taking from Valentin occurred. Because there was only one forceful taking of money from one cash register, only one conviction for armed robbery can stand. See Lundy v. State, 614 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing conviction and sentence for one of two armed robbery convictions, when there was only one forceful taking from two restaurant employees). We reverse Harvey’s conviction for the armed robbery of Jason Valentin. The cas…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983)
- Taylor v. State, 608 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1992)
- Taylor v. State, 589 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Hopps v. State, 594 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)