EDSEL GRIFFIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1973-12-07
No. 73-542
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
286 So. 2d 220 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
OWEN, Chief Judge.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant-Griffin held one Hendricks and another at gunpoint, caused an accomplice to bind the victims’ hands with tape, and then removed the contents of the victims’ pockets. Before departing the scene, appellant put the pistol to Hendricks’ head and threatened to blow his brains out.

Appellant, convicted of both robbery and aggravated assault, contends upon the authority of Morrison v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So. 2d 502, that he should not have been convicted and sentenced on the latter charge as it was a lesser included offense of the former. The evidence sustains the conviction and separate sentence on both the robbery and aggravated assault charges because of the aggravated assault occurring separate and apart from, and after completion of, the robbery. Wade v. Wainwright, Fla.App. 1972, 266 So. 2d 378.

Affirmed.

CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • DiCAPRIO v. Polk, 335 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
    …ate specified in such rule, it is the opinion of the court that defendant shall be forthwith released from incarceration in Seminole County and shall remain at liberty unless and until compliance with section 949.11, Florida Statute. Grose v. Stack, 286 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Petition for habeas corpus GRANTED. MAGER, C. J., and DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . “949.11 Hearing. — Any person whose parole or probation agreement is revoked pursuant to § 949.10 shall be given a hearing pursuant to…
  • Morris v. State, 396 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
    …y himself. See, Crosby v. State, 97 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1957). 4. The state’s alleged failure to comply with the provisions of Section 949.11, Fla. Stat. (1979) is totally immaterial to the validity of the convictions under review. See, Grose v. Stack, 286 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).1 Affirmed. . The contentions initially raised in the reply brief are both untimely and without merit. See, Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw