NAPOLEON DOWDELL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Napoleon Dowdell appealed convictions for robbery while armed and kidnapping while armed, challenging whether the victim's movement was incidental to the robbery and whether consecutive sentences for both offenses were improper. The court affirmed, holding that the movement and confinement of the victim were sufficiently independent of the robbery and that kidnapping does not require completion of the underlying felony, thus supporting separate sentences.
The court held that the movement and confinement of the victim was significantly independent of the robbery because it served to lessen the risk of detection and facilitate commission of the robbery. The court also held that kidnapping does not require completion of the underlying felony, only the intent to commit or facilitate it, making it distinguishable from felony murder and supporting separate consecutive sentences.
[1] Movement or confinement of a victim is not inconsequential or inherent in the nature of robbery when it serves to lessen the risk of detection and facilitate the commissi…
[2] Kidnapping requires proof of intent to commit or facilitate a felony, not necessarily the completed underlying felony.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We reject Dowdell's contention that the confinement and movement of the victim in this ease was not significantly independent of the crime of robbery. The movement of the manager from the well-lighted parking lot through the rear door into the building and the requirement that he stay out-of-sight below counter level in moving to and from the safe supports a jury finding that the movement and confinement served to lessen the risk of detection, Ayendes v. State, 385 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and to facilitate the commission of the crime of robbery.”
Establishes that the victim's movement and confinement were sufficiently independent of the robbery because they served to reduce detection risk and facilitate the crime.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Taco Bell manager was robbed at gunpoint shortly after midnight. After receiving calls about suspicious activity near his car in the well-lit parkin…
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 Kidnapping Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Napoleon Dowdell’s appeal from judgments of guilt of robbery while in possession of a firearm and kidnapping while in possession of a firearm and sentences for both offenses raises two issues:
I. Was the movement or confinement of the victim inconsequential or inherent in the nature of the robbery?
II. Did the kidnapping offense, by definition and as alleged in the information, require proof of the underlying felony of robbery so as to make it error for the trial court to impose consecutive sentences for each conviction?
Answering both questions in the negative, we affirm.
I
The facts relevant to the robbery and the kidnapping charges establish that a Taco Bell was robbed at about 12:30 a. m. The store had closed earlier and the manager had stayed around to clean up and to do some paperwork. At 12:15 a. m. the manager got a call from someone in an apartment building which overlooked the parking lot of the Taco Bell and was told that someone was doing something around the manager’s car which was in the parking lot behind the Taco Bell. The manager looked out a peephole through the rear door and could not see anything and did nothing further. He then got a second call with similar information. At that time he grabbed a knife and went out a side door to investigate. There were no other cars in the parking lot. As he got near his car, he then saw a man standing with a gun pointed at him. There was good lighting in the parking lot. The man told him to open the door before he killed him. They walked inside, going through the rear door. All of the interior lights were on in Taco Bell. The robber required the manager to get down below counter level and crawl toward the front of the store to the safe and to get money out and put it in a bank bag. The robber then ripped out the phone and left through the rear door. We reject Dowdell’s contention that the confinement and movement of the victim in this ease was not significantly independent of the crime of robbery. The movement of the manager from the well-lighted parking lot through the rear door into the building and the requirement that he stay out-of-sight below counter level in moving to and from the safe supports a jury finding that the movement and confinement served to lessen the risk of detection, Ayendes v. State, 385 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and to facilitate the commission of the crime of robbery. Section 787.01(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1979).
II
As for the alleged sentencing error, Dowdell contends that since the offense of kidnapping involves the confinement or movement of another person against his will with intent to commit or facilitate the commission of any felony and since he was charged with kidnapping “with the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of robbery,” the robbery was necessarily included within the kidnapping. Accordingly, he urges, under State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981), it was error to sentence him for both offenses.
The flaw in this argument is that the offense of kidnapping does not require that the underlying felony be completed; it only requires that the perpetrator intend to commit or to facilitate the commission of the felony. See Green v. State, 415 So. 2d 143, (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Thus, it is distinguishable from the situation in the Hegstrom case involving a felony murder wherein the actual commission of a felony must be proved. Accordingly, we find the sentences to be authorized.
AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…l assault and murder and thus independently established the offense of kidnapping.1 Of course, under the broader view of the kidnapping statute which we espoused in Faison v. State, supra, Sorey’s argument fares even worse. Accord, Dowdell v. State, 415 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (requiring store manager at gunpoint to re-enter rear door of store and crawl to safe in front constitutes movement and confinement which served to lessen risk of detection and made out an offense under kidnapping statute). We t…
-
Brinson v. State, 483 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…s accosted outside her apartment, and was then forced inside the apartment; movement of a victim, outside to inside a building, may not be characterized as "inconsequential," as an aid to the commission of an armed robbery. Accord, Dowdell v. State, 415 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet, for rev. den., 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983) (restaurant employees moved from parking lot to inside restaurant building); contra, Jackson v. State, 436 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (victim moved from threshold of motel door to…
-
Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…arly upheld dual convictions where the confinement was not inconsequential nor incidental to the other felonies committed. See Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (restaurant employees tied up on floor after robbery); Dowdell v. State, 415 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983) (restaurant manager forced to re-enter restaurant through rear door from parking lot and crawl to safe in front); Carron v. State, 414 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), approved, 427 So. 2d 192…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- Ayendes v. State, 385 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Harnden v. Iding, 415 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)