HERBERT HERMAN TARPLEY, 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.
Appellant Tarpley was convicted of robbery and assault with intent to commit murder (convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault) and received concurrent sentences. He appealed arguing that where multiple counts arise from the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed. The court affirmed, holding that the two offenses were temporally and factually separate because the assault occurred after and during flight from the robbery.
The court held that two sentences were properly imposed because the assault offense was committed after and separate from the robbery, occurring during flight from the scene of the first offense. Although convictions may be had on multiple counts arising from the same transaction, separate sentences are proper when the offenses are temporally and factually distinct.
[1] A defendant may be convicted and sentenced on multiple counts arising from a single transaction if each count represents a distinct offense.
[2] When offenses arise from separate transactions, even if occurring in close proximity, separate sentences may be imposed.
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“It is well established that where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, a conviction may be had on each count, but only one sentence may be imposed.”
States the general rule regarding sentencing in multi-count cases arising from a single transaction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee of a life insurance company and his supervisor were accosted on the street by Tarpley, who pointed a gun at one man's head and forced them…
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 Separate Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
By an information the appellant was charged with robbery, in one count, and with assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, in a second count. His trial before a jury resulted in convictions on both counts. On the first count he was convicted of robbery. On the second count the conviction was for aggravated assault, a lesser included offense of the offense there charged. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years on the former, and to imprisonment for five years on the latter, with provision for the sentences to run concurrently. The sole question presented on this appeal taken by the defendant is whether imposition of two sentences by the court was error.
Appellant argues: “It is well established that where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, a conviction may be had on each count, but only one sentence may be imposed.” We are not in disagreement with that proposition. See Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 469, cited by appellant.
However, on the facts of this case the argument submitted by the appellant is not applicable.
The record shows that an employee of a life insurance company, engaged in the *302collection of premiums in a certain area of the city, and his supervisor who was accompanying him, were accosted on the street by the defendant who pointed a gun at the head of one of the men and forced them to enter an alley or areaway between two buildings; that thereupon other men appeared and relieved the agent of money and other articles on his person, following which the defendant and the other assailants departed from the area, and as they were leaving one of them fired a shot at the victims. There was testimony by one of the victims that the defendant was the man who fired the shot.
The charged offense of assault with intent to commit murder (under which the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault) was committed after the robbery occurred, and during the defendant’s flight from the scene of the first offense. In that situation the two offenses were separate, and it was proper to impose the two sentences. Steele v. Mayo, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 386; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 639; Footman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 356.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 336 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…3 (1975), and Johnson v. State, 9 Md.App. 37, 262 A. 2d 325 (1970). . Wilson v. State, 221 So. 2d 1 (Fla.App. 1st 1969). . Phillips v. State, 120 Fla. 134, 162 So. 346 (1935). .Meeks v. State, 289 So. 2d 479 (Fla.App. 3rd 1974); Tarpley v. State, 258 So. 2d 301 Fla.App. 3rd 1972), and Wade v. Wainwright, 266 So. 2d 378 (Fla.App. 4th 1972).…
-
Harris v. State, 338 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…sections of the same statute, although committed in one criminal episode, the Yost principle is not applicable. A separate sentence may be imposed upon conviction of each separate offense. Steele v. Mayo, 72 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1954); Tarpley v. State, 258 So. 2d 301 (Fla.3rd DCA 1972); Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1975). Therefore, we find no error on this point. Affirmed.…
-
Meeks v. State, 289 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…. The convictions and. sentences for the two offenses were proper. The attempted robbery was one transaction. The shooting of the victim after the attempted robbery had failed was a separate crime. Closely in point is Tarpley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 301, and see Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 386; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 639; Green v. State, 134 Fla. 216, 183 So. 728. For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentences are affirmed, subject to the outcome of certain further pro…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Steele v. Mayo, 72 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1954)
- Kish v. State, 198 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Footman v. State, 203 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)