MOSES E. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1994-07-13
No. 93-2857
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
639 So. 2d 192 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1994)

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.


Holding

The court held that when property belonging to an employer and property belonging to an employee are taken from the employee in a single incident, only one robbery has occurred.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was charged with two counts of robbery: one for currency belonging to the employer taken from an employee, and another for a gold chain belo…

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from convictions and sentences in two counts for robbery. In Morgan v. State, 407 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), this court held that where one individual had property taken from him, and some of the property was his and some was that of his employer, there was only one robbery. Our companion court in Horne v. State, 623 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), held the same.

In the present case, two employees were in the gas station/convenience store that was robbed. The state chose to charge appellant in Count I with taking the employer’s currency from one of the employees, Charles Bowling. In Count II, it charged appellant with the robbery of a gold chain from the other employee, Robert Bridges.

At trial, the evidence showed that appellant took the gold chain and the currency from Bridges. The state now concedes and we conclude that only one robbery therefore occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence for Count II (Bridges); but reverse the conviction and sentence for Count I (Bowling) and remand with direction to vacate the latter. ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw