FREDDIE LEE HARRISON, 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 was convicted of robbery, trespass, and battery arising from stealing clothes from a store and pushing a security guard. The court held that the battery conviction must be vacated because the force element constituting the battery was inherent in and inseparable from the robbery conviction, violating double jeopardy principles.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and battery when the battery committed during the theft is the same act that serves as the force element necessary to constitute the robbery. The battery conviction must be vacated as the battery is inherent in and inextricably bound to the robbery conviction.
[1] A conviction for battery is violative of double jeopardy rights when the battery was an inherent and necessary element of a robbery conviction under the specific facts an…
[2] When a jury specifically finds a defendant guilty of robbery based on force used subsequent to a theft, and that force constitutes a battery, a separate conviction for ba…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“These two convictions cannot stand, so the battery conviction must be vacated.”
The court's core holding that double jeopardy principles prevent dual convictions when battery is the force element of robbery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was observed stealing clothes from a store. When confronted by a security guard, appellant pushed the guard and fled the premises. He was la…
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
DAUKSCH, J.
This is an appeal from convictions for Robbery, Trespass and Battery.
Appellant claims it is violative of double jeopardy rights for him to have been convicted of both robbery and battery because the battery, under the facts of this case, was inherent in the commission of the robbery. We agree.
Appellant was seen stealing clothes from a store and was confronted by a security guard. After pushing the guard appellant fled and was later caught. At trial the jury rendered its verdict of guilt thusly: “We the jury find the Defendant guilty of Robbery (Subsequent Force), as charged in the Information.” This interrogatory verdict was based upon the evidence that as appellant left the store with the clothes he was committing a theft; when he pushed the security guard he committed a battery and by that battery converted the theft into a robbery. These two convictions cannot stand, so the battery conviction must be vacated. See Crawford v. State, 662 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Slater v. State, 543 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Because the charge of robbery in this case alleges the taking “and subsequent to said taking in a continuous series of acts or events with said taking [he] did use forcé violence, assault, or putting in fear” and because the jury was specifically asked to and did find him guilty of robbery with “subsequent force,” the theft and the force are inextricably bound together to form the robbery. Said another way, the only battery committed in this case was one of the necessary elements of the charge and conviction for the robbery. Still another analysis would show that the battery enhanced the theft to constitute the robbery. This is the same result reached in Crawford where a battery committed during a burglary enhanced the burglary to a higher-degree felony and this court said the defendant could not also be convicted of the battery. Likewise, in Slater, this court held that one could not be convicted of both “burglary with a battery” and “battery” out of the same occurrence. The decision in this case is limited to the evidence in this case, the charges against this appellant, and the specific finding of the jury regarding the element of force being the very battery of which he was also found guilty. See Hamrick v. State, 648 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The Convictions for Robbery and trespass are affirmed. The conviction for battery is reversed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. State, 834 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…nd-a-half there.” The trial court thereupon resentenced appellant to two consecutive five year terms with the PRR designation specifically removed. We address the double jeopardy question of the dual convictions first. Relying on Harrison v. State, 755 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 776 So. 2d 277 (Fla.2000), the appellant argues the battery conviction must be vacated because the only battery that was committed was used to support the robbery conviction. In Harrison, the defendant was charged and co…
-
Dunbar v. State, 879 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…if no actual touching occurred, by placing the victim “in fear.” Id. In this case, we note the information charged that Dunbar committed the offense by the use of “force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” We have considered Harrison v. State, 755 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), but deem it distinguishable. In Harrison, a security guard witnessed the defendant shoplifting. Id. at 821. As the guard attempted to confront him when he left the store, the defendant shoved the guard and fled. Id. In that case…
Authorities Cited
- Hamrick v. State, 648 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Art Crawford v. State, 662 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Sampson E. Riley v. State, 543 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Kardell Vernon Slater v. State, 543 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)