Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

693 So. 2d 694

Harvey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 14, 1997

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-05-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 2009

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the money taken by the defendant belonged to a single owner, but it was taken by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear from two separate employees. The taking was from separate cash registers, over the second of which the first employee had no control. The two events were separated in time and each required separate criminal intent. Actual ownership of the money obtained is not dispositive of the question of whether multiple robberies have been committed. What is dispositive is whether there have been successive and distinct forceful takings with a separate and independent intent for each transaction.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including LaBarbara v. State

Relies on 430 So. 2d 446 - Brown v. State · Lundy v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-05-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

¶1Anthony Ray Harvey appeals his convictions of four counts of armed kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of armed robbery. We affirm without discussion the convictions for armed kidnapping, aggravated assault and the armed robbery of Paul Moore. Because the evidence presented at the trial failed to prove the occurrence of two separate robberies, we are required to reverse Harvey’s conviction for the armed robbery of Jason Valentin.

¶2On September 17, 1994, at about 11:00 p.m., Harvey entered a Taco Bell restaurant. He ordered all the restaurant employees, except Moore, the manager, into the restaurant’s walk-in freezer at gunpoint. The employees inside the freezer included Valentin, the cashier. After locking the freezer, Harvey forced Moore to remove the money from the cash register and give it to him. As a result of these actions, Harvey was charged and convicted of two armed robberies — one of Moore and one of Valentin.

¶3Harvey argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal for the armed robbery of Valentin because multiple robbery convictions require “successive and distinct forceful takings with a separate and independent intent for each transaction.” Brown v. State, 430 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1983). The State contends Valentin, as restaurant cashier, had custody and control over the money in the cash register. However, Valentin was not present when Harvey ordered the money removed from the cash register, and Moore, not Valentin, actually removed the money and gave it to Harvey. Therefore, no separate and distinct taking from Valentin occurred. Because there was only one forceful taking of money from one cash register, only one conviction for armed robbery can stand. See Lundy v. State, 614 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing conviction and sentence for one of two armed robbery convictions, when there was only one forceful taking from two restaurant employees).

¶4We reverse Harvey’s conviction for the armed robbery of Jason Valentin. The case is remanded to the trial court to correct Harvey’s sentencing scoresheet and, if required, to resentence Harvey accordingly.

¶5Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
/693/so2d/694 · .json · Public domain