Smith v. State

          Rehearing Denied November 13, 2019

Page 818

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 819

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312015CF001430B.

         Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

         Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

         OPINION

         FORST, J.

         Appellant was convicted for multiple offenses associated with his robbery of a supermarket. He now raises three issues on appeal. We write to address two of Appellant’s arguments; the third is affirmed without discussion. First, we conclude the trial court did not fail to conduct an adequate Richardson ^[1] hearing into the State’s discovery violation to determine procedural prejudice to Appellant. Second, we conclude that when the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of false imprisonment, it did not reversibly err in including restraint as an element of the offense. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

          Background

          About ten minutes before the supermarket closed, Appellant stormed into the store, armed with a semiautomatic pistol and carrying a black backpack. He pointed the pistol at the five people inside the store and directed them to place their phones on the floor and go into the store’s cash office, before closing the door behind them. Inside the cash office, he directed the store manager to open the safe and put its contents (about $3,000) into the black backpack.

          Appellant then took the black backpack, directed the victims to stay inside the cash office for at least five minutes after he left, closed the door to the cash office and ran out of the store. As he ran through the parking lot, he encountered a store employee arriving for work. At gunpoint, he ordered the employee into the store. Shortly thereafter, the victims emerged from the cash office and called 911 to report the robbery. By this time, Appellant had driven off. In response to the 911 call, police were alerted about the robbery and pursued Appellant’s truck through local and neighborhood roads, before apprehending him.

          The State ultimately charged and tried Appellant for robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask; six counts of kidnapping while armed and masked; and fleeing and eluding. He was tried separately for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

          A. The State’s alleged ...