ROBERT HAMILTON, 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.
The court held that evidence of a prior robbery was admissible to show a common scheme and, even if inadmissible, the error was harmless.
Robert Hamilton was convicted of robbery and possession of a firearm. The prosecution introduced evidence of a separate robbery of another chicken res…
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 Common Scheme Or Design cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Hamilton seeks reversal of his conviction for robbery and possession of a firearm as a result of his holding up a Chicken Unlimited Restaurant.
For his single point on appeal, Hamilton argues that the court erred in permitting the prosecution to elicit evidence of a robbery of another restaurant (Chuck’s Fried Chicken) in which he was involved because such evidence served only to infer a propensity on his part to engage in criminal conduct. We cannot agree.
Evidence revealing other crimes is admissible if relevant and if it tends to show identity, common scheme or design, guilty knowledge, intent, etc. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
The record reflects the following similarities between the two robberies: Both chicken restaurants are fast food chains located within thirty blocks of one another on the same highway. The second robbery occurred within one day of the first, and both robberies were committed by use of a firearm placed in Hamilton’s waistband. Thus, evidence of this second robbery was admissible to show a common scheme. Cf. Christie v. State, 246 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971).
Moreover, even if the evidence of the second robbery was not admissible, the error would be harmless in view of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony identifying Hamilton as the perpetrator of the instant robbery. See Keel v. State, 243 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Gordan v. State, 288 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Damon v. State, 397 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…nces in which they had employed the same scheme as the one involved in this case constituted a violation of the rule of Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959) is without substance. Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972); Hamilton v. State, 356 So. 2d 30 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1978). .The same is true of the subsequent cases which have followed Pinder. E. g., Williams v. State, 397 So. 2d 438 (Fla.3d DCA 1981) (attempted robbery with a firearm-possession of a firearm d…
-
Wilt v. State, 410 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…of the defendant’s guilt, it would appear that the harmless error doctrine should be considered and the conviction and sentence of second degree murder should be affirmed. See: Gordon v. State, 288 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Hamilton v. State, 356 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Keel v. State, 243 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Clark v. State, 378 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); United States v. Mayo, 646 F. 2d 369 (9th Cir. 1980). . One witness actually testified he saw a gun in the defendant’s hand…
-
Nicholson v. State, 486 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ee State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984); Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287, 289-91 (Fla.1976), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 704, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977); Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881, 882-83 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Hamilton v. State, 356 So. 2d 30 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1978); Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Feldman v. State, 194 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is, in all respects Affirme…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Masse v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Carlton W. Christie v. State, 246 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Keel v. State, 243 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Benson v. Newton, 288 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Gordan v. State, 288 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)