ALFRED WILCHER, 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.
Alfred Wilcher was convicted of armed robbery and four counts of armed kidnapping. The court reversed the kidnapping convictions but affirmed the armed robbery conviction, finding that the movement of store employees 50-60 feet during the robbery was merely incidental to the robbery itself and insufficient to constitute kidnapping under Florida law.
The movement of the victims was slight, inconsequential, and merely incidental to the robbery, thus insufficient to support kidnapping convictions. The court reversed the kidnapping convictions and remanded for resentencing on the robbery conviction.
[1] Movement of victims during a robbery is not kidnapping if the movement is slight, inconsequential, and merely incidental to the robbery.
[2] Movement or confinement constituting kidnapping must have some significance independent of the underlying crime, making the crime substantially easier to commit or substa…
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 intelligence“moving several victims 30 or 40 feet to the rear of a store in the course of a robbery is a slight and inconsequential act that is merely incidental to a robbery”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Walker v. State for determining whether movement during a robbery constitutes kidnapping.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilcher and two accomplices entered a store intending to commit robbery. At gunpoint, they moved several employees approximately 50-60 feet from the f…
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 Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and four counts of armed. kidnapping. We reverse the judgment on the four kidnapping counts and affirm as to the armed robbery.
Appellant, with two others, entered a store with the purpose of committing a robbery and, at gunpoint, ushered several employees into a back room approximately 50 to 60 feet from the front of the store. The victims were forced to lay on the floor and were told not to look at the perpetrators. The manager was then taken to the front to open the safe and was later returned to the floor with the others.
It was error to deny Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges. Walker v. State, 604 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1992). In Walker, under similar circumstances, the supreme court determined that moving several victims 30 or 40 feet to the rear of a store in the course of a robbery is a slight and inconsequential act that is merely incidental to a robbery. In reaching this conclusion, the court applied the test adopted in Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 965-66 (Fla.1983), used to determine whether evidence is sufficient to constitute kidnapping under section 787.01, Florida Statutes. Under this test, the movement or confinement: (a) must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crimes; (b) must not be the kind inherent in the nature of the other crimes; and (c) must have some significance independent of the other crimes in that it makes the other crimes substantially easier to commit or substantially lessens the risk of detection. See also, Kirtsey v. State, 511 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
In Walker, the court distinguished related cases in which kidnapping convictions have been upheld:
Unlike in Faison, the victims were not dragged from room to room. They were not bound and blindfolded for half an hour as in Marsh v. State, 546 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). They were not barricaded inside the bathroom like in Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), nor were they taken out of the store and put in the restroom located in the rear as in Ferguson. [Ferguson v. State, 533 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1988) ]....
Walker at 477.
The facts of this case are certainly more closely analogous to those in Walker than to the facts in the above cases distinguished in Walker. We recognize that the events in Walker occurred within a somewhat shorter time frame, and that apparently the victims in Walker did not obey the command to lie on the floor as they did here. Nevertheless, we cannot justify a failure to apply the Walker reasoning here simply because Appellant moved the victims 20 feet further, and across a threshold, and committed the crime within minutes rather than seconds.
Therefore, the judgments on the four kidnapping counts are reversed and we remand for resentencing on the robbery conviction. With respect to the other issue on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion.
FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desmond Rohan v. State, 696 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…o. 2d at 965; Berry, 668 So. 2d at 969. Under the Faison test, Rohan’s confinement of Bloch does not amount to criminal conduct separate from the burglary with a battery. The confinement was indistinguishable from the battery. See Wilcher v. State, 647 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Keller, 586 So. 2d at 1262. The battery started when Rohan began pushing Roque after entering the apartment; the battery stopped when the alarm clock went off. The confinement began when Rohan grabbed the victim’s arms and cease…
-
Biggs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…to get on floor or be killed, after robbing the victims ordered them into bathroom of each motel room and told them not to come out or they might be killed, and victims stayed in bathrooms while robbers went through their luggage); Wilcher v. State, 647 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(applying Walker reasoning to reverse kidnaping judgments where defendants entered store to commit robbery, ushered several employees at gunpoint into back room approximately 50 to 60 feet from front of store, forced victims to la…
-
Lewis v. State, 50 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ting State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 547 P. 2d 720, 731 (1976)). The act of moving a victim from one room to another during the course of a robbery is insufficient to establish a kidnapping separate and distinct from the robbery. In Wilcher v. State, 647 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the defendant entered a store at gunpoint and ushered employees into a room fifty to sixty feet from the front of the store. The employees were forced to lie on the floor while the manager was taken to the front of the store to…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Ferguson v. State, 533 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1988)
- Walker v. State, 604 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1992)
- Kirtsey v. State, 511 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Marsh v. State, 546 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)