CHARLES WILLIAM HAYNES, 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.
Court affirmed armed robbery conviction but reversed grand larceny conviction because larceny is a necessarily included offense in robbery and a defendant cannot be convicted of both arising from the same transaction.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and grand larceny arising from the same transaction because larceny is necessarily included in robbery.
[1] A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and a lesser included offense of larceny arising from the same transaction, and conviction of the lesser included offense…
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“It is legally impossible to prove a robbery without also proving a larceny.”
Court citing Hammer v. State to establish that larceny is inherent to robbery.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and grand larceny arising from the same incident and sentenced to twenty-five years for armed robbery and fiv…
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 Double Jeopardy (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction for armed robbery and grand larceny. The trial judge sentenced appellant to twenty-five years for armed robbery and five years for grand larceny, both sentences to run concurrently. We affirm the judgment and sentence as to the armed robbery. We reverse the judgment and sentence as to the grand larceny. The grand larceny arose out of the armed robbery. Larceny is necessarily included in the crime of robbery. Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377, 383 (Fla.1968). “It is legally impossible to prove a robbery without also proving a larceny.” Hammer v. State, 343 So. 2d 856, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). A defendant cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense and the higher offense arising out of the same transaction. McClendon v. State, 372 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Appellant contends he was prejudiced “in the eyes of the jury” by being charged with two separate crimes where only one existed and seeks a new trial on the armed robbery charge. We reject this contention as devoid of merit. We discern no prejudice to appellant. Ergo, we affirm the conviction for armed robbery but reverse the conviction for grand larceny and remand to the trial judge with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence for grand larceny.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borges v. State, 394 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…tate, 299 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), was reversed by the Supreme Court in State v. Kirkland, 322 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1975); also see Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla.1975). We are equally cognizant of our recent holding in Haynes v. State, 377 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). However, Haynes hinged on a finding of a Brown category four, not an application of the single transaction rule. After the rendering of most of the above cited cases, Florida enacted Section 775.021(4) effective October of 1976…
-
Bruns v. State, 408 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…r points on appeal, one of which requires discussion and reversal. Although the evidence presented at trial would have supported a conviction of petit larceny, appellant’s request for a jury instruction on that crime was denied. In Haynes v. State, 377 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), we held that larceny is necessarily included in the crime of robbery and that it is legally impossible to prove robbery without proving larceny. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510 expressly requires the trial court to cha…
-
McCANTS v. State, 382 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…her, it falls within category four of Brown and may be a lesser included offense if it is alleged in the accusatory instrument and supported by the proof at trial. State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1973); Brown v. State, supra; Haynes v. State, 377 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Under category four of Brown, a defendant “. . . may be convicted of any lesser offense, which, although not an essential ingredient of the major crime, is spelled out in the accusatory pleading in [*755] that it alleges all o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- McCLENDON v. State, 372 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Hammer v. State, 343 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)