CEPHUS HILL AND JOHN LEGGETT, APPELLANTS,
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.
Appellants Hill and Leggett were convicted of multiple counts of robbery in a Publix Supermarket holdup. The court reversed convictions on two counts, finding they constituted a single offense under Florida law, and remanded for resentencing.
Counts I and II charging robbery of two separate victims constitute only a single offense under Florida law. The conviction on one count must be reversed, and the case must be remanded for resentencing treating the two counts as a single offense.
[1] A conviction for robbery may be reversed if the information charges multiple offenses that constitute a single offense under the law.
[2] When all property is taken at the same time, in the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent, only a single larceny has been committed.
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“where all the property which is the subject of a larceny is stolen at the same time, in the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent, only a single larceny has been committed”
The controlling legal principle from Hearn v. State establishing that multiple theft charges arising from a single continuous act constitute one offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeggett entered a Publix Supermarket office area brandishing a gun and ordered both a cashier (Pam Wiley) and the manager (Alston Gonzalez) to give hi…
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.
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an appeal from convictions resulting from a holdup at a Publix Supermarket.
The appellant, John Leggett was found guilty by a jury of five counts of robbery in violation of Fla.Stat. § 813.011, F.S.A. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 35 years in state prison.
The public defender previously filed a motion to withdraw in case no. 73-1148, involving co-defendant, Cephus Hill, and having proceeded in the manner outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, the appeal in that case is not now considered.
In addition, the only point argued to this court was point two of the appellant’s brief, and therefore, that is the sole point which we have considered in case no. 73-1180.
The appellant contends that Count I and II of the information charged only a single offense; and, therefore, one of the counts must be reversed. We agree.
In essence, Leggett was charged in these two counts with robbery of Alston Gonzalez, the manager of the store, and Pam Wiley, a cashier. The proof at trial showed that Leggett entered the office area of the store, brandishing a gun. He ordered both the cashier and the manager to give him money belonging to Publix from a drawer and a safe.
Appellant cites Hearn v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 559 in which the Florida Supreme Court held that where all the property which is the subject of a larceny is stolen at the same time, in the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent, only a single larceny has been committed.
The state distinguishes Hearn v. State, supra, on the basis that in this case the charges were robbery, not simply larceny, and one element of the offense is force or violence against the victim or putting the victim in fear. Nevertheless, the statute clearly provides that the money or property taken in a robbery must be the subject of larceny, and we think the Hearn case is controlling.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the sentence upon counts one and two must be vacated, and the cause remanded for resentencing with directions to treat count one and two as only a single offense.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983)…McDONALD, Justice. We granted the petition for review of the decision below, Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), based upon apparent conflict with Hill v. State, 293 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). We approve. Brown entered a Family Dollar Store, approached one cashier, displayed a firearm, and directed her to empty the money from her register into a paper bag. Failing to find the manager, Brown returned to the first cashi…1 / 2
-
Taylor v. State, 608 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1992)…r was convicted of two counts of armed robbery with a firearm. The district court of appeal reversed the armed robbery conviction of Smith because there had been only one forceful taking. See Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983); Hill v. State, 293 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). However, under the authority of section 924.34, Florida Statutes (1989), the court directed the entry of a judgment of conviction for the crime of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon committed against Smith. The court acknowl…
-
Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences. Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1973), and O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); contra Hill v. State, 293 So. 2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). We reject the state’s argument that the Hearn rule was nullified by the addition of subdivision (4) to section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1976).1 By its own terms the amendment does not apply when the state charges that one crimi…
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
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1951)