JIMENEZ
v.
STATE
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.
Force used to retain property after it has been taken constitutes robbery under Florida Statute § 812.13(3)(b).
[1] Force used to retain property after it has been taken constitutes robbery under Florida law when the retention and the taking form a continuous series of acts or events.
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“An act shall be deemed 'in the course of the taking' if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series of acts or events”
Florida Statute § 812.13(3)(b) defining when acts are considered part of the taking for purposes of robbery
The defendant took property from a victim, and force was used in connection with retaining that property during or immediately after the taking.…
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
PER CURIAM.
*660Affirmed. See § 812.13(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing: "An act shall be deemed 'in the course of the taking' if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series of acts or events"); Fonseca v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (affirming robbery conviction where defendant grabbed money from a store cash register and ran; the cashier chased defendant and grabbed him, preventing him from leaving the store; the cashier and defendant fell to the ground, at which time defendant punched and kicked the cashier and then fled the store); Messina v. State, 728 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that robbery can be established by proof that force was used to retain the victim's property once it has been taken); Lemus v. State, 641 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (same).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Messina v. State, 728 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lemus v. State, 641 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)