Parker v. StateParker v. State
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Jack Ludin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ., аnd WILLIAM C. OWEN, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, Charlie Parker, appeals his conviction and sentеnce for grand theft and possession of cocaine.
On the night of July 22, 1980, Kathy Reynolds and William Bordeаux drove to a street corner in Hialeah to purchase marijuana. When they reachеd the corner, they stopped their automobile and the appellant approаched them and sold marijuana to Bordeaux. The appellant then reached into the аutomobile and took a gold necklace from Reynolds’ neck. Reynolds told her father abоut the incident soon thereafter and he promptly reported it to the police who tоok a report from her. The next day Bordeaux returned twice to the corner where the mаrijuana sale and the theft of the necklace took place, and observed the appellant. Bordeaux immediately reported to the police that he had seen thе appellant at the corner and the police responded and approаched the appellant, who then started running. He was caught and placed under arrest. A seаrch revealed cocaine in his possession.
The appellant was charged in onе information with three counts: robbery (Count I), possession of cocaine (Count II), and resisting an officer without violence (Count III).
Following pleas of not guilty, appellant moved to sever Counts II аnd III from Count I. The motion was denied. However, during trial a motion for acquittal was granted as to Count III. Thе jury returned verdicts of guilt to grand theft on Count I and possession of cocaine, Count II. On motion of the State, the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender upon a showing that he had been convicted of robbery in 1978. The trial court imposed an enhanced sentencе under
In the first point on aрpeal appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever Count I from Counts II and III because the grand theft on July 22 and possession of cocaine and resisting an officer without violence on July 23 were not connected within the meaning of
We cannot agree and hold that the offenses herein were properly charged in a single information becаuse they were connected in an episodic sense; that is, they were part of the same course of conduct and occurred within a period of a few hours at the very same location. The first offense led to and was connected with the other offenses; that is, the robbery and subsequent investigation led to the arrest and charges of cocaine possession and resisting arrest without violence. Jacobs v. State, 396 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1981); Williams v. State, 409 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Green v. State, 408 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
The record shows that at the sentencing hearing the court heard evidence of аppellant‘s prior conviction of a felony within the previous five years, viewed a document stating that the defendant had not been pardoned for any crimes in the State of Florida, сonsidered the pre-sentence investigation, and allowed an opportunity for rebuttal of any matters raised. The trial court then sentenced the appellant as a habitual offеnder and stated that “the imposition of sentence under this Section is necessary for the prоtection of the public from further criminal activity by the defendant.” It does not appear frоm the record that the appellant objected to the imposition of the enhanced sentence.
We have considered appellant‘s contention in the light of the record and the controlling decisions and have concluded that the record is sufficient to suppоrt the enhanced sentence. Jones v. State, 387 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Eichhorn v. State, 386 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Stewart v. State, 385 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); McClain v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Affirmed.