State v. Laster, 735 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Laster, 735 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Johnson v. State (fla, 2001-03-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State (2×)
Fla. · 2001 · confidence medium
Shortly thereafter, this Court issued decisions in State v. Butler, 735 So.2d 481, 482 (Fla.1999), and State v. Laster, 735 So.2d 481, 481 (Fla.1999), wherein we stated, "We do not find any merit to the State's argument in this case that the area behind the counter was not open to the public." This Court treated Butler and Laster as being controlled by our decision in Miller .
cited Cited "see" Harrell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Laster, 735 So.2d 481 (Fla.1999); State v. Butler, 735 So.2d 481 (Fla.1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." LaBarbara v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Johnson, 483 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla.1986); Johnson v. State, 747 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); see also Butler v. State, 711 So.2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (stating that Butler “did not waive his double jeopardy claim arising from the multiple robbery convictions and sentences by his failure to raise it before the trial court”), approved, 735 So.2d 481 (Fla.1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cruller v. State
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Butler v. State, 711 So.2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the defendant was convicted improperly of two counts of armed robbery, whether property of the convenience store and property of the store's employee was taken from the employee "during one continuous episode"), approved, 735 So.2d 481 (Fla.1999); Horne v. State, 623 So.2d 777, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (reversing one of two convictions for armed robbery because "[t]here was little or no temporal or geographic break between the two takings" of property from one individual); Hamilton v. State, 487 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Taylor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Butler v. State, 711 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (vacating one of two convictions for armed robbery, where undisputed evidence disclosed that property of the convenience store and property of the store's employee was taken from the employee during one continuous episode), approved, 735 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1999); Nordelo v. State, 603 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (vacating one of two convictions for armed robbery because taking money from a cash register and then beating the clerk and taking his wallet were parts of one "comprehensive transaction to confiscate the sole victim's property"…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Robert LASTER, Respondent.
92,864.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Apr 29, 1999.
735 So. 2d 481
Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and L. Michael Billmeier, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial, Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Laster v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D790, ___ So.2d ___, 1998 WL 129034(Fla. 1st DCA 1998), in which the district court certified conflict with the opinion in Garvin v. State, 685 So.2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), regarding whether the "open to the public" defense is a complete defense to the charge of burglary. See § 810.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

This case is controlled by our recent decision in Miller v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly 5155, 733 So.2d 955 (Fla.1998). In Miller, we held that if a defendant can establish that the premises were open to the public, then this is a complete defense to the charge of burglary. We do not find any merit to the State's argument in this case that the area behind the counter was not open to the public. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the First District Court of Appeal. We disapprove Garvin to the extent that it is inconsistent with our decision in Miller.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.