NICKOLE CRIMSON, 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.
Appellant's conviction for armed robbery as an aider and abettor was affirmed, but the mandatory three-year minimum sentence was struck because he was not present at the scene of the crime.
A person who aids and abets an armed robbery but is not present at the scene cannot be subjected to the mandatory three-year minimum sentence under Florida law.
[1] The mandatory three-year minimum sentence for armed robbery under Florida Statutes § 775.087(2) does not apply to an aider and abettor who was not present at the scene of…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrimson lent his gun to four others knowing it would be used in a robbery. He was convicted as a principal aider and abettor and sentenced to ten year…
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 Aider And Abettor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant lent his gun, knowing it was to be used by four others in the com mission of a robbery. Upon conviction as a principal, being an aider and abettor in the crime of armed robbery, per Section 777.-011, Florida Statutes (1979), he was sentenced to a ten-year term with a mandatory minimum three-year sentence per Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1979). This appeal ensued.
The appellant urges error as to two points: first, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and, second, the giving of the mandatory three-year minimum sentence.
As to the first point, we find no merit. Lee v. State, 153 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Graham v. State, 160 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). As to the second point, we find error. The three culprits who were at the scene of the crime, who did not handle the gun, could not have been given a three-year minimum sentence upon conviction of armed robbery. Arthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1977); McGowan v. State, 362 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Therefore, we find it was error to give the appellant a three-year minimum sentence upon conviction, when he was not present at the scene.
Therefore, we affirm the conviction and the adjudication of guilt, but we modify the sentence by striking therefrom the provision relating to the three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connolly v. State, 172 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…n Lemus, there is no single continuous criminal episode which would permit a conclusion that Connolly’s carrying of a firearm occurred during the commission of the murder. Finally, one cannot easily ignore this Court’s decision in Crimson v. State, 390 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).50 In that case, Crimson lent his firearm to several [*959] other individuals, knowing that this firearm would be used by them in committing an armed robbery. Crimson was convicted of armed robbery as a principal (aiding and abett…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1977)
- LEE v. State, 153 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- McGOWAN v. State, 362 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Arthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Graham v. State, 160 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)