Case Name: Arthur BARNHILL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-06-13
Citations: 471 So. 2d 160
Docket Number: No. 83-1399
Parties: Arthur BARNHILL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 471
Pages: 160–163

Head Matter:
Arthur BARNHILL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-1399.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 13, 1985.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, Justice.
Barnhill argues on appeal that his convictions for attempted robbery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon violate his constitutional double jeopardy rights because the act which constituted the aggravated battery was part of the "overt act" which necessarily formed the factual basis for the attempted armed robbery offense. We disagree in this case and affirm.
The record in this case is adequate to support a finding that two different crimes occurred. Barnhill approached a cashier in a grocery store and gave her a "holdup" note. When she failed to respond, Barnhill pulled out a pistol from a paper bag he was carrying, and said "Don't force me to hurt you."
When the cashier still failed to respond, Barnhill reached across the counter towards the open cash register drawer. The cashier slammed the drawer shut. At that point, Barnhill rushed behind the counter and ordered the cashier to lie down on the floor. When she refused, he hit her over the head twice with the pistol and fled from the store.
The striking of this admirably resistant robbery victim, which was the basis for the aggravated battery charge, could have been found by the jury to have occurred after the robbery attempt had been foiled by the victim's slamming the drawer shut. Since Barnhill made no further attempt to grab the money or to force the cashier to reopen the drawer, the jury could have concluded he abandoned his robbery attempt, and was at that point striking at the victim in retaliation for her resistance. Since there was a sufficient factual basis to support the jury's conviction for both crimes charged, we do not reach the double jeopardy issue. See Mitchell v. State, 407 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The judgment is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
COWART, J., concurring specially with opinion.
. § 777.04(1) & 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981).
. § 784.045(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981).
.U.S.CONST. amend. V; Art. I, § 9, Fla.Const.