GARY LAMAR HOWARD, 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.
Gary Howard appeals his convictions for armed robbery and armed carjacking, claiming double jeopardy because the crimes arose from a single criminal episode. The court affirms, holding that Howard committed two separate offenses because he took the victim's car at gunpoint and then, in a different location, took the victim's personal property.
Howard's convictions for armed robbery and armed carjacking do not violate double jeopardy because he committed two discrete offenses: taking the victim's car at gunpoint at one location, and taking the victim's personal effects at a different location shortly thereafter.
[1] Robbery and carjacking are distinct offenses when the taking of personal property and the taking of a motor vehicle occur as separate acts within a criminal episode.
[2] Separate convictions for offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction are permissible.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction warrants a separate conviction”
Establishes that multiple convictions are permissible under Florida law even within a single criminal episode when distinct offenses are committed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 29, 1996, Howard pointed a gun at Terry Hill at a McDonald's drive-through, forced him out of the driver's seat, and drove away. While hol…
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 Armed Carjacking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Howard appeals his convictions for armed robbery and armed carjacking on the ground of double jeopardy, contending that only one robbery occurred, during which the victim was forced to relinquish his automobile, wallet and jewelry. We disagree and affirm, finding that Howard committed two separate offenses.
On December 29,1996, Terry Hill drove up to the drive-through window at a McDonald’s restaurant, and while waiting in line, a man he later identified as Howard pointed a gun at him through the car window and ordered him to open the door and slide over to the passenger side. Hill complied. Howard sped from the parking lot and, while holding the gun to Hill’s neck, took Hill’s cash, a wedding band and a bracelet. After driving two blocks, Howard let Hill out of the car, and he was apprehended within an hour. Section 812.13(1), Florida Statutes (1995), defines robbery as
the taking of money or other 'property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. (Emphasis added.) Section 812.133(1), Florida Statutes (1995), defines carjacking nearly identically, replacing the emphasized language with the words “a motor vehicle.” Section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), precludes multiple convictions when one offense contains all the elements necessary to another, but that provision applies to convictions under different statutes based upon the same underlying act. Section 775.021(4)(b), however, provides that “each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction” warrants a separate conviction. (Emphasis added.)
Howard relies upon Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153, 154 (Fla.1994), wherein the court concluded that grand theft auto and armed robbery based upon the theft of a single car were not two offenses, but instead were “merely degree variants of the core offense of theft.” Howard also cites Hamilton v. State, 487 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), wherein the court held that dual convictions for grand theft and robbery constituted double jeopardy, once the evidence showed that Hamilton held up the victim with a gun and stole his cash and his car. The court stated, however, that Hamilton robbed the victim of his money and automobile “all in a single transaction,” id. at 408, presumably meaning “at the same time.”
In contrast to Sirmons and Hamilton, the case at bar involved two discrete offenses: taking the victim’s ear at gunpoint, and shortly thereafter, while in a different location, taking his personal effects. Similarly, in Smart v. State, 652 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the court affirmed convictions for armed robbery and armed carjacking upon evidence showing that Smart robbed his victim of jewelry and his wallet next to an ATM machine, and then drove away in the victim’s car. The Fifth District reached the same result in Mason v. State, 665 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), where the evidence disclosed that the defendant robbed the victim of money and then took his car. See also McKin ney v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1991) (rejecting a double-jeopardy argument based upon .evidence that the defendant shot the victim and took his car — grand theft — then dumped the victim, minus his wallet and watch— robbery — which the court stated were different acts); Waters v. State, 542 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (concluding that when the defendant obtained the victim’s watch and money by fear — robbery—and then drove off in the victim’s car after the victim fled — grand theft — he committed two acts rather than one).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruller v. State, 808 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2002)…inct acts arose where the defendants entered the victims’ vehicle at gunpoint, drove the vehicle to a different location (with the victims still inside the car), and forced one of the victim to withdraw money from an ATM machine. In Howard v. State, 723 So. 2d 863, 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the First District concluded that two distinct acts occurred where the defendant took the victim’s car at gunpoint and, shortly thereafter, while in a different location, took the victim’s personal effects. [*209] However,…
-
Ward v. State, 730 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…heft and armed robbery. I respectfully dissent from the majority in reversing the conviction for armed carjacking for the reason that I am unable to reconcile that action with this court’s recent decision in Howard v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2600, 723 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In Howard, we affirmed his convictions for armed robbery and armed carjacking, where the same claim of double jeopardy was made, upon facts recited as follows: On December 29, 1996, Terry Hill drove up to the drive-through win…1 / 2
-
Blevins v. State, 756 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…passenger, demanded the driver’s money and threatened to stab him, then had the driver exit the cab, whereupon the defendant drove away in the cab. The court held that two crimes, robbery and carjacking, were committed. Id. See also Howard v. State, 723 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). As in Consiglio, Simboli, and Howard, we deem Blevins’ intent and actions in committing the robbery and grand theft to be sufficiently separate to constitute separate criminal offenses. Blevins also argues that his conviction…
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
- Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1994)
- Boris McKINNEY v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1991)
- Smart v. State, 652 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Waters v. State, 542 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Ellis R. Mason v. State, 665 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- D.A.P. v. State, 487 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)