SHEDDICK LAMAR GOFF, A/K/A CHUCKIE GOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; STEVEN DARNELL MACK, 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.
Two codefendants appealed convictions for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and attempted armed kidnapping arising from a store robbery. The court affirmed armed robbery convictions but reversed kidnapping convictions, finding the movement of victims merely incidental to the robbery, and remanded for resentencing to impose concurrent rather than stacked mandatory minimums.
The court reversed all kidnapping convictions, finding the 180-foot movement of victims incidental to the robbery rather than independent kidnapping. The court affirmed two armed robbery convictions because Haarer and Boggs were ordered separately at gunpoint to put money in a bag. The court held mandatory minimums must run concurrently rather than consecutively for offenses from the same criminal episode.
[1] Movement of victims during a robbery is not independently significant and thus does not constitute kidnapping when it is merely incidental to the commission of the underl…
[2] Separate convictions for armed robbery are supported when distinct acts, such as being ordered at gunpoint to put money in a bag and being ordered to retrieve a video tap…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The movement of the store employees to the back of the store was merely incidental to the robbery and did not have independent significance.”
Establishes the legal standard that victim movement must have independent significance to constitute kidnapping separate from robbery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 27, 1991, appellants Goff and Mack entered a Publix store in Ruskin. Goff showed a gun and forced assistant manager Haarer to open the safe…
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 Armed Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Goff and Mack, codefendants at trial, appeal from their judgments and sentences for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and attempted armed kidnapping. We consolidate their appeals for the purpose of this opinion, affirm in part and reverse in part.
On January 27,1991, William Haarer, the assistant store manager of the Publix in Ruskin, was leaving the office area of the store at about 8:50 p.m. when he saw the appellants enter the store. Haarer saw the handle of a gun in Goffs jacket. Goff had Haarer go in the office, open the safe, and fill a bag with money. Mack, who was also armed, brought John Boggs, a store employee, into the office. The appellants ordered Haarer to remove the tape from the video camera in the office. Before doing so, Haarer handed the bag to Boggs to continue filling with money. Several other employees present during the robbery were told to lie on the floor. The appellants then ordered the victims to go down an aisle approximately 180 feet to the back door. The appellants fired two shots and left the scene.
The state charged the appellants with two counts of armed robbery and seven counts of armed kidnapping. Following a jury trial, the appellants were convicted of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of armed kidnapping, and three counts of attempted armed kidnapping.
The appellants first argue that their motions for judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges should have been granted. We agree. The movement of the store employees to the back of the store was merely incidental to the robbery and did not have independent significance. See Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983).
This case is factually similar to Walker v. State, 604 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1992). In Walker, the defendant took money from the cash register at a convenience store and then ordered the occupants of the store to go to the back of the store and lie on the floor. While the victims moved a distance of thirty to forty feet, the defendant left the store. The supreme court held that the limited movement of the victims, which only lasted a few seconds, was insignificant and merely incidental to the robberies. 604 So. 2d at 477. On the basis of Faison and Walker, we reverse the armed kidnapping and attempted armed kidnapping convictions.
The appellants also argue that they should not have been convicted and sentenced for two armed robberies; however, both Haarer and Boggs were ordered at gunpoint to put money in a bag, and Haarer was ordered to retrieve the video tape. These acts were sufficiently distinct to support two armed robbery convictions. See Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we affirm the armed robbery convictions.
The appellants’ last argument, that the trial court erred in “stacking” the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentences imposed under the habitual offender statute, is correct. On resentencing for the armed robberies, the trial court must impose concurrent fifteen-year mandatory minimums since the offenses arose from the same criminal episode. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Biggs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…to commit robbery, ushered several employees at gunpoint into back room approximately 50 to 60 feet from front of store, forced victims to lay on floor, took manager to front to open safe and later returned him to floor with others); Goff v. State, 616 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(flnding that movement of employees was merely incidental and did not have independent significance from robbery where defendants entered Publix store as manager was leaving office area, one defendant had manager enter office, open…
-
Koon v. State, 640 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…case occurred at the same time, in the same room but involved two separate victims. Under similar circumstances, this court has found the crimes were committed in a single episode. See Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Goff v. State, 616 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). While the trial court could impose separate life sentences, the trial court could not order the habitualized sentences to run consecutively. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, reverse the sentences [*1227] a…
-
Baker v. State, 639 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…no direct proof in the record evidence that Baker attempted to move the victim anywhere, and since the state offered no circumstantial evidence to prove Baker intended to move the victim anywhere, the conviction must be reversed. See Goff v. State, 616 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (convictions for armed kidnapping and attempted armed kidnapping reversed where movement or confinement of armed robbery victims was limited to lying on the floor, getting money out of the safe, or moving approximately 180 feet to…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983)
- Walker v. State, 604 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1992)