CHARLES JAMES MALLORY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery, not just petit larceny.
The appellant and two others entered a store; while one man threatened the proprietor with a gun and demanded money, the appellant stole two sweaters …
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 Acting In Concert cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a conviction of robbery. He and two other men entered a store together. Once inside, they separated; one left, the premises and the appellant went to the rear of the store with the proprietor’s father. Another of the trio stayed at the front of the store and, when approached by the proprietor, he stated he didn’t want anything ; that he was waiting on the appellant and then he pulled a gun, stuck it in the proprietor’s stomach and demanded the money in the cash register. An altercation ensued between the proprietor and the man holding the gun, during which time the appellant grabbed two sweaters and ran. The only one apprehended was the appellant. He was tried on the charge of robbery, convicted, judgment and sentence accordingly.
By this appeal, it is urged that the most the record will sustain is a conviction of petit larceny because it fails to link the appellant’s crime with the actions of the party pulling the gun and demanding that the owner of the store turn over the money in the cash register. We affirm.
The evidence is unrefuted that the appellant and the “gun wielder” entered the store at the same time; that they separated and, while another pulled a gun and demanded money, the appellant grabbed articles not belonging to him and fled from the scene. We find ample evidence to support the conviction, either because the appellant acted in concert with the “gun wielder” or because he took advantage of the situation, adopted the circumstances of the store owner’s being under the threat of a gun and removed personal property not belonging to him. See: Bass v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 614; Perry v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 892; Eaton v. State, 8 Ala.App. 136, 63 So. 41; People v. Lee, 55 Ill.App.2d 371, 204 N.E.2d 588.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the conviction, judgment and sentence here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sangester v. State, 211 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…he aided and abetted in the crime charged. Upon consideration of that contention in the light of the record and briefs, we conclude otherwise. In our view the evidence adequately supports the verdict and judgment. See Mallory v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 69. Affirmed.…
-
Royden Sampson v. State, 400 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…participating in ransacking [*171] the house, fled with some of Reed’s property in his possession — fully supports the jury finding of his guilt as a principal of robbery. See, Jefferson v. State, 298 So. 2d 465 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Mallory v. State, 211 So. 2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Perry v. State, 177 So. 2d 892 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). Furthermore, since he was “personally present” when the killing took place, Sampson was properly found guilty of first rather than second degree felony murder. Adams v. State, 341…
Authorities Cited
- Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Glenwood Frederick Perry v. State, 177 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)