From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Latimer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 1, 2010
44 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

holding that convictions for robbery and simple assault violated double jeopardy when robbery could be committed by “the use of force, violence, assault or putting in fear” and the verdict form required no finding as to whether the robbery was committed by assault or some other use of force or violence

Summary of this case from Aubuchon v. State

Opinion

No. 5D09-4316.

October 1, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Walter Komanski, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


We affirm, without discussion, Latimer's conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon. However, double jeopardy principles preclude Latimer's conviction for simple assault arising from the same criminal transaction. Robbery involves the "taking of money or other property . . . from the person or custody of another . . . when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault or putting in fear." § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added). The verdict form gave no indication as to whether the jury determined that the taking in this case constituted robbery because of the accompanying assault on the victim, or based upon some separate use of force or violence. Because "[w]e must read the verdict in a manner which would give the benefit of the doubt to" the defendant, State v. Reardon, 763 So.2d 418, 419 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), we conclude that the convictions for both robbery and simple assault cannot stand. Cf. Young v. State, 43 So.3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); West v. State, 21 So.3d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Bracey v. State, 985 So.2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Torna v. State, 742 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse the assault conviction and remand with instructions that the assault conviction and sentence be vacated.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

LAWSON, EVANDER and JABUS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Latimer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 1, 2010
44 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

holding that convictions for robbery and simple assault violated double jeopardy when robbery could be committed by “the use of force, violence, assault or putting in fear” and the verdict form required no finding as to whether the robbery was committed by assault or some other use of force or violence

Summary of this case from Aubuchon v. State
Case details for

Latimer v. State

Case Details

Full title:Walter LATIMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 1, 2010

Citations

44 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Brooks v. State

Brooks also challenges his conviction for simple assault under double jeopardy principles. Relying on this…

Rivera-Rivera v. State

As to the battery conviction, the State correctly concedes error, as the battery was subsumed by the greater…