ROBERT DYSON, 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.
Dyson was convicted of both robbery with a weapon and carjacking with a weapon for stealing a motorcycle at gunpoint. The court held that these dual convictions violate double jeopardy because carjacking is a specific subset of robbery, and Dyson was charged with and convicted of taking only a single item of property.
Dyson's dual convictions violate double jeopardy and cannot stand because carjacking is a specific subset of robbery, and here Dyson was charged with and found to have stolen only one item. The robbery conviction is vacated, and the carjacking conviction is affirmed.
[1] Dual convictions for robbery and carjacking violate double jeopardy when only one item of property, a motor vehicle, is alleged and proven to have been taken.
[2] The carjacking statute is a specific subset of the more general robbery statute.
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“The Florida Supreme Court has found that the carjacking statute is a specific subset of the more general robbery statute.”
Establishes the legal framework for analyzing the relationship between the two statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDyson called a motorcycle shop owner expressing interest in purchasing a motorcycle. When shown the motorcycle, Dyson attacked the victim with a malle…
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 Robbery Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Dyson contends that the trial court committed fundamental error1 in adjudicating and sentencing him for both robbery with a weapon2 and carjacking with a weapon.3 The State concedes that Dyson’s dual convictions violate double jeopardy.
Dyson was found guilty, after a jury trial, of robbery with a weapon and carjacking with a weapon. The evidence established that the victim, the owner of a motorcycle body shop, agreed to help a customer sell his motorcycle. The victim met Dyson at his shop after Dyson had called and expressed an interest in purchasing the motorcycle. After being shown the motorcycle, Dyson attacked the victim with a mallet and then stole the motorcycle.
In the amended information, the only item of property alleged to have been taken by Dyson was the motorcycle. The Florida Supreme Court has found that the carjacking statute is a specific subset of the more general robbery statute. Cruller v. State, 808 So.2d 201, 204 (Fla.2002). (“The language of the carjacking statute mirrors the language of the robbery statute with one exception — carjacking pertains only to motor vehicles whereas robbery pertains to all property.”)
In Cruller, the court found that convictions for robbery and carjacking did not violate the principle of double jeopardy where the defendant was found to have taken items of property other than the motor vehicle. Here, however, Dyson was charged with and found to have stolen only one item — the motorcycle. Accordingly, we conclude that Dyson’s dual convictions cannot stand because, under the facts of this case, the two offenses required identical elements of proof. See generally, § 775.021(4)(b)(l), Fla. Stat. (2006).
On remand, the trial court is to vacate Dyson’s robbery conviction. The carjacking with a weapon conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
MONACO, J., and PLEUS, R.J., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francis v. State, 41 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…wo concurrent sentences of three years imprisonment followed by three years’ probation. A conviction that violates the prohibition against double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error and may be raised for the first time on appeal. Dyson v. State, 10 So. 3d 650, 651 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Our decision is controlled by the “a/any” test articulated by the supreme [*976] court in Grappin v. State, 450 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1984); State v. Watts, 462 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1985). In Grappin, the court held that the taki…
-
Hanfield v. State, 40 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…steal the ear, but also attempted to take the victim’s wallet or other personal property, such as a watch, etc., that her claim of double jeopardy would fail. The taking of the same property, however, constitutes double jeopardy. See Dyson v. State, 10 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that double jeopardy applies when a defendant is charged with carjacking and robbery of the same item, i.e., a motorcycle). We conclude the taking of the car keys cannot constitute a separate charge of armed robbery. Ha…
Authorities Cited
- Cruller v. State, 808 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2002)
- Elliott Vasquez v. State, 778 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)