WILLIAM E. MCWHIRTER, APPELLANT,
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.
McWhirter appealed convictions for burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property, challenging both the sentences imposed and the validity of the grand theft conviction. The court reversed the grand theft conviction as duplicative of the dealing in stolen property conviction, affirmed the other convictions, and remanded for resentencing.
The grand theft conviction is invalid because it was based on the same course of conduct as the dealing in stolen property conviction. The court reversed the grand theft conviction and remanded for the trial court to either impose a concurrent sentence of not more than six years for the dealing in stolen property conviction or impose no sentence.
[1] A conviction for grand theft is invalid when it is based upon the same course of conduct that served as the foundation for a conviction for dealing in stolen property.
[2] A written judgment and sentence must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“appellant contends that we must remand to the trial court with directions that it correct the written order to reflect its oral pronouncement”
States the central issue of whether the written sentence should be corrected to match the oral pronouncement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcWhirter was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. The trial court orally imposed a five-year sentence fo…
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 Felony Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
William Edward McWhirter appeals a judgment and sentence for burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
A review of the record reveals that the trial court orally imposed a five-year sentence for the burglary conviction, a one-year sentence for the grand theft conviction, to run consecutive to the sentence for the burglary conviction, and a six-year sentence for the dealing in stolen property conviction, to run concurrently with the consecutive sentences for the burglary and grand theft convictions. The court’s written judgment and sentence, however, specifies that appellant serve a five-year sentence for the burglary conviction, a two-year sentence for the grand theft conviction, and no sentence for the dealing in stolen property conviction. Appellant contends that we must remand to the trial court with directions that it correct the written order to reflect its oral pronouncement.
However, appellant also argues that the grand theft conviction must fall because it was based upon the same course of conduct that served as the foundation for the dealing in stolen property conviction. We agree that the grand theft conviction is invalid. Williams v. State, 404 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1981); Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); § 812.025, Fla.Stat. (1981).
Given our reversal of the grand theft conviction, if we remand with directions that the written order be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement, appellant will serve six years (five years for the burglary conviction and six years for the dealing in stolen property conviction, to run concurrently) instead of five years as provided in the written order (five years for the burglary conviction and no sentence for the dealing in stolen property conviction).
Therefore, we reverse the conviction and sentence for grand theft, affirm the conviction and sentence for burglary and the conviction for dealing in stolen property, and remand with instructions that, with respect to the dealing in stolen property conviction, the court either impose a sentence of not more than six years, to run concurrently with the burglary sentence, or not impose any sentence.
AFFIRMED in PART, REVERSED in PART, and REMANDED.
RYDER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bostic, 446 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…could properly charge separate counts of theft and dealing 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 pre…
Authorities Cited
- Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Williams v. State, 404 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)