Case Name: Michael SANTOS, a/k/a Michael Minasian, a/k/a Herman Higgins, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-10-26
Citations: 644 So. 2d 171
Docket Number: No. 93-3755
Parties: Michael SANTOS, a/k/a Michael Minasian, a/k/a Herman Higgins, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DELL, C.J., and WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 644
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
Michael SANTOS, a/k/a Michael Minasian, a/k/a Herman Higgins, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 93-3755.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 26, 1994.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Patricia Ann Ash, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of grand theft arising from the robberies. The state concedes that the grand theft conviction was error under Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994). However, although the state concedes that the multiple convictions on the robbery counts were error, we do not agree. Appellant and his codefendant committed a robbery at a shoe store. In doing so, they obtained money from the safe and the code-fendant ripped two necklaces off the neck of one of the employees. Convictions for both counts of robbery were appropriate. See Cobb v. State, 586 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). While appellant argues that the eode-fendant's snatching of the jewelry from the employee was an independent act for which appellant should not be held responsible, we disagree. From the record a reasonable inference was that the robbery of the employee was a "natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy" to rob the store. See Martinez v. State, 413 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We affirm both convictions for robbery but reverse and vacate the grand theft conviction and sentence. As appellant was habitualized on the robbery counts, which we do not reverse, there is no need to remand for re-sentencing on those counts due to the absence of the grand theft conviction.
DELL, C.J., and WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.