MICHAEL SANTOS, A/K/A MICHAEL MINASIAN, A/K/A HERMAN HIGGINS, 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.
Appellant's grand theft conviction was reversed as erroneous under Sirmons, but his two robbery convictions were affirmed because the codefendant's theft of jewelry was a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy to rob the store.
Two robbery convictions are proper even when committed by different perpetrators during a single robbery if one act is a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy.
[1] Multiple robbery convictions arising from a single robbery are proper when different perpetrators take different items if one act constitutes a natural and probable conse…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy”
Court's reasoning that the codefendant's theft of jewelry was foreseeable as part of the robbery conspiracy
Appellant and a codefendant robbed a shoe store, obtaining money from the safe and jewelry ripped from an employee's neck. Appellant was convicted of …
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 Multiple Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of grand theft arising from the robberies. The state concedes that the grand theft conviction was error under Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1994). However, although the state concedes that the multiple convictions on the robbery counts were error, we do not agree. Appellant and his codefendant committed a robbery at a shoe store. In doing so, they obtained money from the safe and the code-fendant ripped two necklaces off the neck of one of the employees. Convictions for both counts of robbery were appropriate. See Cobb v. State, 586 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). While appellant argues that the eode-fendant’s snatching of the jewelry from the employee was an independent act for which appellant should not be held responsible, we disagree. From the record a reasonable inference was that the robbery of the employee was a “natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy” to rob the store. See Martinez v. State, 413 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We affirm both convictions for robbery but reverse and vacate the grand theft conviction and sentence. As appellant was habitualized on the robbery counts, which we do not reverse, there is no need to remand for re-sentencing on those counts due to the absence of the grand theft conviction.
DELL, C.J., and WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Junior v. State, 763 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…s v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1994). See § 775.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). Additionally, grand theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 295; Guinto v. State, 693 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Santos v. State, 644 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (conviction of robbery and grand theft erroneous under Sirmons). Accordingly, we affirm the robbery conviction and vacate the grand theft conviction. Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, because vacating…
-
Miller v. State, 867 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…grand theft for taking of same property constitute double jeopardy); Junior v. State, 763 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same). In addition, grand theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 295; Santos v. State, 644 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (conviction of robbery and grand theft error under Sirmons). Accordingly, we affirm the robbery conviction and vacate the grand theft conviction. Because eliminating the grand theft conviction will not affect appellant’s sentence…
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1994)
- Martinez v. State, 413 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Cobb v. State, 586 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)