Facts
- George Hampton, his brother Leonard Hampton, and Hillman Arnold went to a store intending to rob the owner, Fred Coles.
- George was armed with a rifle and stayed outside the store as a lookout while Leonard and Hillman went inside.
- Inside the store, Leonard and Hillman confronted Coles with a shotgun and demanded the money from the cash register.
- Coles indicated the register was empty; Leonard then fired the shotgun and wounded Coles.
- Coles fired back, wounding Hillman.
- Leonard ran out of the store, leaving Hillman inside.
- Before leaving with Leonard, George fired a rifle shot through the store window into a table near Coles, and then fled.
- A jury found George guilty of (1) assault with intent to commit robbery and (2) assault with intent to commit second-degree murder (as a lesser included offense under a charge alleging assault with intent to commit first-degree murder).
- The trial court imposed two concurrent sentences, and George appealed.
Issues
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support George Hampton’s conviction for assault with intent to commit robbery when he acted as an armed lookout outside while his confederates threatened the victim inside the store.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hampton’s conviction for assault with intent to commit second-degree murder based on his confederate’s shooting of the victim during the attempted robbery.
- Whether the trial court erred by imposing two concurrent sentences because the two offenses arose from the same criminal transaction.
Decision
- The court affirmed the conviction for assault with intent to commit robbery, holding the evidence showed Hampton was a willing participant who aided and abetted the armed threat used in the attempted taking.
- The court affirmed the conviction for assault with intent to commit second-degree murder, holding that participants in a common unlawful plan may be held responsible for a confederate’s additional criminal act committed in furtherance of that plan; whether the shooting fell within that scope was a question for the jury on these facts.
- The court affirmed the imposition of two concurrent sentences, rejecting the argument that only a single sentence could be imposed simply because both offenses occurred during the same episode.
Legal Principles
- A defendant may be convicted as a principal for assault with intent to commit robbery when he intentionally participates in the attempted robbery by acting as an armed lookout for confederates who threaten the victim to obtain property by force.
- When several persons combine to commit an unlawful act, each may be criminally responsible for acts of the others committed in furtherance or prosecution of the common design.
- Whether a confederate’s additional act of violence is in furtherance of the common design is a fact question for the jury, to be decided from the circumstances of the case.
- Separate convictions and sentences may be imposed for distinct offenses arising from a single criminal episode when the offenses are not the same for punishment purposes under applicable Florida law.
Conclusion
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed Hampton’s convictions and concurrent sentences, ruling that his armed lookout role supported the assault-with-intent-to-rob conviction, that accomplice liability supported the assault-with-intent-to-commit-second-degree-murder conviction based on the shooting during the attempted robbery, and that separate punishment was permissible even though both offenses occurred in the same transaction.