MILTON R. FARMER, 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.
Milton Farmer was convicted of attempted armed robbery, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, and conspiracy. The Florida appellate court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence because the trial court imposed a single general sentence for multiple offenses, which constitutes reversible error.
The appellate court held that: (1) claims of inadequate counsel cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal without prior trial court ruling; (2) sufficient evidence supported the attempted robbery conviction because the defendants committed an overt act beyond mere planning that would have been completed but for police intervention; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing a single general sentence for multiple offenses.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal if the trial court has not previously ruled on the matter.
[2] Evidence of an overt act beyond mere planning, coupled with intent to commit a crime that would have been completed but for intervening circumstances, is sufficient to su…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The conduct of appellant and his companions amounts to an overt act, which went beyond mere planning or the preparatory stage. They had the intent to commit the crime which would have been completed except for the interruption by circumstances independent of the will of the at-tempters.”
Establishes that the defendants' conduct satisfied the legal requirements for attempted robbery conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarmer and accomplice Bell agreed to commit armed robbery in Fort Myers. They obtained a shotgun from Farmer's house, picked up Bowen, and drove to La…
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 Single Transaction Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant Farmer was charged with attempted armed robbery; possession of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony, to wit: armed robbery; and conspiracy to commit a felony punishable by life imprisonment. Upon conviction, the trial judge adjudged Farmer guilty and, treating the charges as a single transaction, sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment. This appeal followed. Oral argument has been dispensed with pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), Florida Appellate Rules.
Farmer contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the court below. The question of adequacy of representation by counsel cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal where the matter had not been previously ruled on by the trial court. State v. Barber, Fla.1974, 301 So. 2d 7.
Farmer next contends that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support a conviction for attempted robbery. We disagree.
One of the participants, Bell, testified that he met Farmer in Ft. Myers and the two agreed to commit armed robbery. After obtaining a shotgun from Farmer’s house and picking up Bowen, a friend of Farmer, they drove to LaBelle and parked near the Big “V” store. The shotgun was taken out of the car and placed by a tree. Farmer remained in the car while Bell and Bowen went into the store. Bell walked outside, secured the shotgun and had started back towards the store when some “guys” pulled up. Bell testified:
“Well, when these guys pulled up they jumped back in the car and I ran down the block someplace and I paused for a second and at that time the police came around and surrounded me.”
The conduct of appellant and his companions amounts to an overt act, which went beyond mere planning or the preparatory stage. They had the intent to commit the crime which would have been completed except for the interruption by circumstances independent of the will of the at-tempters. Gustine v. State, 1923, 86 Fla. 24, 97 So. 207; Groneau v. State, Fla.App.4th 1967, 201 So. 2d 599.
We have considered the other points raised by Farmer and have found them to be without merit.
Although not raised on appeal, one other matter deserves discussion. The lower court imposed a general sentence of fifteen years, treating the charges as a sin gle transaction. We have heretofore held in Darden v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 306 So. 2d 581, that the imposition of a general sentence on two or more offenses is reversible error. See also Haddon v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 307 So. 2d 283.
The judgments are, therefore, affirmed, but the general fifteen-year sentence is hereby vacated and the cause is remanded for correct sentencing. On remand, we are certain that the trial judge will consider that the charges of attempted robbery and possession of a firearm while attempting to commit that robbery are part of the same transaction. Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 12. Only one sentence is appropriate, therefore, and that for the higher offense. We remind the trial court also that the offense of conspiracy is a separate offense and a separate sentence should be entered on this charge.
Reversed and remanded.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…. 2d 857 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); King v. State, 320 So. 2d 19 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Donathen v. State, 319 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Griffin v. State, 315 So. 2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Landers v. State, 315 So. 2d 522 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Farmer v. State, 315 So. 2d 225 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). . The decision suggests, contrary to the Clark limitation on Benson (n. 7 above), that all general sentences are improper. . Paul…
-
Hervon Carter v. State, 330 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…ntences was to be served on each count. It has been held that such a sentence constitutes an impermissible “general sentence,” Landers v. State, 315 So. 2d 522 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Griffin v. State, 315 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Farmer v. State, 315 So. 2d 225 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla.App. 2nd 1975). It has also been held that where one is charged in a dual-count in [*509] formation with (1) robbery, and (2) the use of a f…
-
Costello King v. State, 320 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…ior cases held such sentences to be general and, therefore, invalid. Darden v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 306 So. 2d 581; Haddon v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 307 So. 2d 238; Long v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 310 So. 2d 35; Farmer v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 315 So. 2d 225. We have considered the other points raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. Davis v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 277 So. 2d 300; Williams v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 297 So. 2d 67. The judgments are affirmed; but, the causes are remande…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1923)
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Groneau v. State, 201 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)