ARCHIE DANIELS AND MICHAEL DUNN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendants convicted of dealing in stolen property in Franklin County appealed after being previously convicted of grand theft of the same property in Gulf County. The court reversed, holding that Florida Statute § 812.025 prohibits conviction on both theft and dealing in stolen property charges arising from the same scheme, regardless of whether charges are brought in separate counties.
Section 812.025 prohibits conviction of both theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the same scheme and course of conduct, and this prohibition applies regardless of whether charges are brought in separate informations in separate counties. The defendants' Franklin County convictions for dealing in stolen property are reversed.
[1] A person cannot be convicted of both theft and dealing in the same stolen property when the offenses arise from the same scheme or course of conduct.
[2] Florida Statute § 812.025 prohibits conviction for both theft and dealing in stolen property, even if charged in separate informations or in different counties.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts”
The statutory prohibition that is central to the court's holding and interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants stole a television set in Gulf County and sold it in Franklin County. They were charged and convicted in Gulf County of grand theft involvi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scheme Or Course Of Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal their judgments and sentences for dealing in stolen property. They contend that § 812.025, Fla.Stat. precludes them from being charged and tried in Franklin County for dealing in stolen property when they had been previously charged and convicted in Gulf County of grand theft involving the same property. We agree and reverse.
The defendants stole a television set in Gulf County, and sold it in Franklin County.1 The defendants were charged in Franklin County with dealing in stolen property. They had been previously charged and convicted in Gulf County for grand theft involving the same television set which they sold in Franklin County. The state does not contest the fact that the offenses arose out of the same scheme and course of conduct. Defendants contend that pursuant to § 812.025 they cannot be convicted of both dealing in stolen property and of grand theft of the same property.
Section 812.025 provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts, (emphasis added).
Section 812.025 clearly prohibits a conviction of both crimes if charged in the same information and there is no reason for a different interpretation merely because the defendants here were charged in separate informations in separate counties. Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). There is no reason why a person cannot be convicted of theft of property and also be guilty of dealing in the same stolen property in the absence of the prohibition in § 812.025. See Coley v. State, 391 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, the legislature has seen fit to prohibit the conviction of both theft and of dealing in the same stolen property and it is the prerogative of the legislature and not this court to make any change.
The defendants’ Franklin County convictions and sentences for dealing in stolen property are reversed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Although appellants in their brief say two television sets were involved and the state does not contest this fact, the record indicates only one television set was stolen and sold.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stallworth v. State, 538 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…r, but not both, of the counts. The above language of section 812.025 clearly forbids convictions for both dealing in stolen property and grand theft of the same property in regard to the same scheme or course of conduct. See also Daniels v. State, 422 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (conviction for dealing in stolen property in Franklin County could not stand when defendant had previously been convicted in Gulf County of grand theft in connection with the same property); Jones v. State, 453 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.…
-
Gray v. State, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…d evidence reflect that the offenses were part of one scheme or course of conduct; therefore, the trial court erred by imposing separate adjudications of guilt upon appellant for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. See Daniels v. State, 422 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA1982); Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA1981). Accord Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA1981) (section 812.025 prohibited convictions for both grand theft, charged under the 1977 statutes, and dealing in stolen pro…
-
State v. Bostic, 446 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in a single information, so long as the trier of fact returns a guilty verdict on one or the other. McWhirter v. State, 429 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Daniels v. State, 422 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (1981). We conclude that the present information neither misled nor embarrassed appellee in the preparation of his defense nor exposed him to double jeop…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Coley v. State, 391 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)