Case Name: Jonathon B. HUMPHRIES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-06-16
Citations: 676 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: No. 94-2474
Parties: Jonathon B. HUMPHRIES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 676
Pages: 1–3

Head Matter:
Jonathon B. HUMPHRIES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-2474.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 16, 1995.
Order on Rehearing Dec. 1, 1995.
Order Denying Rehearing En Banc June 28, 1996.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Dee R. Ball, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Timothy D. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence in a kidnapping and robbery case. Appellant was convicted of
Count I — Attempted Robbery With a Firearm;
Count II — Shooting at, within or into a Building;
Count III — Attempted First Degree Murder with a Firearm;
Count IV — Carrying a Concealed Firearm;
Counts V & VI — Attempted Kidnapping with a Weapon.
He complains that his conviction for attempted kidnapping should be reversed because the facts do not satisfy the Faison test. That case requires that if a person is charged with kidnapping incidental to another crime, such as robbery or rape, then it must be proved that the movement or confinement of the victim
(a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime;
(b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and
(c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.
Id. at 965.
Here, appellant was armed and brought duct tape to a store to rob it. He ordered the victims into a storage area and began to secure the victims with the tape. They resisted and appellant was thwarted in his robbery attempt, as well as his alleged kidnapping attempt. He did succeed in shooting one of the victims in the face.
We reverse the convictions and sentences for kidnapping because the attempts to kidnap were merely incidental to the principal plan of appellant to rob the store. See also Walker v. State, 604 So.2d 475 (Fla.1992); Kirtsey v. State, 511 So.2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Because appellant's written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral sentences, the trial judge on remand should properly resentence appellant.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
. Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983).