The Supreme Court of Florida explained the "afterthought" jurisprudence in Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000). In that case, the Court said: Where an "afterthought" argument is raised, the defendant's theory is carefully analyzed in light of the entire circumstances of the incident. If there is competent, substantial evidence to uphold the robbery conviction, and no other motive for the murder appears from the record, the robbery conviction will be upheld. onversely, in those cases where the record discloses that, in committing the murder, the defendant was apparently motivated by some reason other than a desire to obtain the stolen valuable, a conviction for robbery (or the robbery aggravator) will not be upheld. (Id. at 662.