5D00-2478 State v. Hawkins

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2001 » 5D00-2478 State v. Hawkins

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D00-2478 State

Case Date: 06/11/2001

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-2478 DANA DION HAWKINS, Appellee. / Opinion filed June 15, 2001 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Lawrence V. Johnston, Judge. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Curtis N. Flajole and James G. Kontos of James G. Kontos, P. A., Melbourne, for Appellee. ORFINGER, R. B., J. The State of Florida appeals the trial court's ruling granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict finding Dana Dion Hawkins guilty of robbery in violation of section 812.13(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).1 The State argues that it presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Hawkins contends that the State presented

The trial judge ruled that Hawkins was guilty of attempted robbery. Hawkins was also found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 893.147(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999). That conviction was not appealed by either party.

1

insufficient evidence that "force, violence, assault or putting in fear" was used "in the course of the taking" as required by law. Hawkins also contends that a victim's efforts to retake possession of a vehicle that was initially taken without the use of force cannot transform a car theft into a robbery. Our review of the record demonstrates that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of guilt. We therefore reverse the order granting the motion for judgment of acquittal and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict. On December 28, 1998, James Bland pulled his one-ton pickup truck into the parking lot of a 7-Eleven in Palm Bay, Florida. The truck had large side mirrors and a "granny gear," a very low gear designed for pulling heavy loads or objects. Bland left the keys in the truck and went inside the 7-Eleven to get a cup of coffee. While inside the store, Bland observed the truck being backed out of the parking spot. He immediately went outside, ran to the driver's side of the truck as it began to pull forward and began yelling at Hawkins, the man driving his truck, to stop. By this time, the truck was moving forward at about 7 or 8 miles per hour. It became obvious to Bland that Hawkins did not know how to shift the truck out of granny gear, so although Hawkins was attempting to accelerate the truck, it wouldn't go any faster. Bland grabbed the side mirror and the open driver's side window and jogged along the side of the truck as Hawkins pulled out of the parking lot onto a side street moving in the direction of Palm Bay Road. Bland, while shouting at Hawkins to stop the truck, leaned into the open window of the truck attempting to grab either Hawkins or the keys, but was unsuccessful. Hawkins "leaned over on the seat" and tried to avoid Bland, never looking at him. As the truck approached Palm Bay Road, a four lane, divided road with heavy 2

morning traffic moving at about fifty miles per hour, Bland became fearful that he would be in danger should he be carried along on the outside of the truck onto a busy highway, and jumped off just before the truck entered Palm Bay Road. Bland testified that he was afraid of being hit by an oncoming car. About this time, another 7-Eleven patron who had witnessed the incident pulled up in his car, told Bland to get in, and they pursued the slow moving vehicle for about threequarters of a mile. Hawkins then pulled the truck into a Wendy's parking lot, jumped out and ran. Bland gave chase and tackled Hawkins. In the process, Bland broke his ankle. Hawkins was then arrested and told the police he took the truck because he was "high." At trial, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal arguing that the State failed to prove that force, violence, assault or putting in fear was used in the course of the taking as required by law. The trial judge reserved ruling on the motion. After the jury found Hawkins guilty of robbery, the trial judge granted the motion for judgment of acquittal and reduced the conviction to attempted robbery. A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied. State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt. Dupree v. State, 705 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the State that a jury might fairly infer from the evidence. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1974). It is the 3

trial judge's task to review the evidence to determine the presence or absence of competent evidence from which a jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989). Because we review the same evidence available to the trial judge, we review the record de novo to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. Williams, 742 So. 2d at 511. To prove robbery, the State must prove that: 1. 2. 3. 4. The defendant took money or property from the person or custody of the victim; Force, violence, assault or putting in fear was used in the course of the taking;2 The property taken was of some value, and; The taking was done with intent to either temporarily or permanently deprive the victim of his or her right to the property or any benefit from it or to appropriate the money or property to his own use or to the use of someone else.

Download 5D00-2478 State v. Hawkins.pdf