Summary
concluding that when the defendant obtained the victim's watch and money by fear — robbery — and then drove off in the victim's car after the victim fled — grand theft — he committed two acts rather than one
Summary of this case from Howard v. StateOpinion
No. 88-1579.
May 16, 1989.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Ronald J. Friedman, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joni B. Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.
We affirm the robbery and grand theft convictions under review upon a holding that these convictions are not based, as urged, on the same underlying act — but, on the contrary, arise out of two separate acts of the defendant Willie J. Waters: (1) obtaining the victim's watch and money by fear (robbery), and (2) driving off with the victim's car after the victim abandoned the car and escaped from the defendant's presence (grand theft). This being so, the rule stated in Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161, 170 (Fla. 1987), is inapplicable to the instant case.
Affirmed.