Rockmore v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3348, 2012 WL 669065, 114 So. 3d 958 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's robbery statute, the use of force, violence, or threats during flight after a theft constitutes robbery if the taking and the subsequent use of force are part of a continuous series of acts or events, regardless of whether the defendant retains possession of the stolen property.
Facts:
- Appellant stole clothing from a Wal-Mart store.
- A store employee confronted Appellant as he attempted to exit the store.
- Appellant fled with the merchandise, and the store employee pursued him.
- During the pursuit, the employee grabbed Appellant’s jacket, causing Appellant to drop some or all of the stolen merchandise.
- The employee continued to pursue Appellant until Appellant reached his get-away car.
- Before entering the car, Appellant displayed a firearm that had been concealed in his waistband and warned the employee to stop the pursuit.
- The employee retreated, and Appellant escaped in the car.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was charged with robbery with a firearm in a Florida trial court.
- During trial, Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
- Appellant proposed a special jury instruction regarding the abandonment of property, which the trial court modified before giving it to the jury.
- The jury convicted Appellant of robbery with a firearm.
- Appellant appealed his conviction to the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of force or threats during flight from a theft constitute robbery under Florida's robbery statute, even if the defendant has already dropped or discarded the stolen property, as long as the acts form a continuous series of events?
Opinions:
Majority - Torpy, J.
Yes, the use of force or threats during flight from a theft constitutes robbery even if the defendant has discarded the stolen property, provided the acts constitute a continuous series of events. The court reasoned that the 1987 legislative amendment to Florida's robbery statute, section 812.13, was specifically intended to supersede the ruling in Royal v. State and expand the definition of robbery. The statute defines an act as being 'in the course of the taking' if it occurs subsequent to the taking and constitutes a 'continuous series of acts or events.' The court explicitly rejected the dicta from State v. Baker, which suggested that continuous possession of the stolen property was necessary. The proper focus is not on possession or the defendant's motive for using force, but on whether the taking, flight, and subsequent use of force are part of an uninterrupted sequence. The escape is as much a part of the crime as the taking itself.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Florida's robbery statute by holding that the 'continuous series of acts or events' is the dispositive factor, not the defendant's continuous possession of the stolen goods. It explicitly rejects prior judicial interpretations that had created a 'continuous possession' requirement, which the court found contrary to the statute's plain language and legislative intent. This ruling makes it easier for prosecutors to secure robbery convictions against defendants who use force to facilitate their escape, even after abandoning the stolen property, thereby broadening the statute's application and focusing the legal inquiry on the temporal continuity of the criminal episode.
