JOSEPH HOLLAND, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
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.
Holland appeals his conviction for robbery, challenging whether the information charging robbery must describe the property taken with particularity. The Florida appellate court affirmed his conviction, holding that the description of property is not an essential element of robbery and need not be alleged with particularity.
The count need not describe the property with particularity because the kind and value of property taken are not essential elements of robbery. The gist of robbery is the felonious taking of property of another by force and putting in fear. Although describing the property is better practice, it is not required for a valid charge.
[1] The crime of robbery does not require a description of the property taken with particularity, as the gist of the offense is the felonious taking by force and putting in f…
[2] A count in an information charging robbery is not defective for failing to describe the property taken with particularity.
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“The crime of robbery does not depend upon, the kind or value of the property taken. The gist of the crime is the felonious taking by the accused of property of another by force and putting in fear.”
Establishes that the nature of property taken is not an essential element of robbery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolland was charged with robbery by force and putting the victim in fear, taking personal property owned by the victim. The information did not descri…
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 Elements Of Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge. '
Holland seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction and sentence based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery. The controlling issue raised by this appeal is whether a count of an information charging robbery must describe the property taken with particularity.
The count with which we are involved alleges that Holland did unlawfully, by force and putting in fear, take from the victim certain personal property owned by the victim, citing Section 813.011, Florida Statutes. After the verdict, Holland moved for arrest of judgment on the ground that the property taken was not described in the count; therefore, the count was so defective that it would not support a judgment of conviction.
The crime of robbery does not depend upon, the kind or value of the property taken. The gist of the crime is the felonious taking by the accused of property of another by force and putting in fear. Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43, 109 So. 303 (1926). Therefore, the kind of property taken is not an essential element of the crime of robbery, and it is unnecessary to allege its description with particularity, although it is a better practice.
In addition, Rule 3.140 (0), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that judgment on a count of an information shall not be arrested for any cause whatsoever, unless the trial court determines that the count is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. Holland’s motion did not allege, and the trial court did not find that the count before us was so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead or embarrass the accused in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. Also, the record before us shows that prior to trial the State disclosed each specific item of personal property to Holland. The trial court properly denied the motion for arrest of judgment.
The other points raised by Holland are without merit.
Affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cotton v. State, 395 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…nd embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after a conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(0); Martinez v. State, 368 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1978); Holland v. State, 319 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Under the facts of this case, we cannot conclude that defendant was misled by the information. For one, the information, despite the looseness of the language used, specifically notes a violation of Section 794.011(3), unlike th…
-
Coleman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…s Coleman show that the items were not of some value, as required to establish robbery. Under Florida law, the offense of robbery only requires that the property be “of some value,” and the State need not prove a precise value. See Holland v. State, 319 So. 2d 577, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (“The crime of robbery does not depend on the kind or value of the property taken. The gist of the crime is the felonious taking by the accused of property of another by force and putting in fear.”). The State presented evi…
Authorities Cited
- Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1926)