MICHAEL ANTHONY RIFE, 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.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property if both offenses arose from the same scheme or course of conduct.
The defendant was convicted of grand theft and dealing in stolen property for the same boat and motor on the same date. The informations and factual b…
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
OTT, Chief Judge.
The trial court adjudicated Michael Anthony Rife guilty of and sentenced him for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. We reverse and set aside the grand theft conviction and sentence as violative of section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1981).
Section 812.025 prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the two offenses arose from one scheme or course of conduct.
In the instant case, the informations charged defendant with stealing a boat and a motor belonging to Richard Fernandez on February 25, 1981, and dealing the same property on the same date. The factual basis recited by the assistant state attorney at the plea hearing essentially tracked the allegations contained in the informations. Without something more to meaningfully disrupt the flow by a clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances, defendant’s conviction of and sentence for grand theft must be set aside. See Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. State, 404 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
We do not mean to infer and do not read section 812.025 to prohibit convictions of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in all situations where the same property is involved. Cf. Cleaves v. State, 450 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The statutory prohibition against dual convictions only extends to the theft and dealing in stolen property “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” The state may be able to prove that the theft of property and sale of that same property are distinct and unrelated criminal incidents. But cf. Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
We vacate and set aside the conviction and sentence on the grand theft charge. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.
BOARDMAN and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burrell v. State, 601 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…rrell’s second issue. [*630] Mr. Burrell correctly contends that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1989), precludes convictions for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. Bostic, 446 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Stallworth v. State, 538 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1989). Because second-degree grand theft and dealing in stolen property under section 81…
-
Wilson v. State, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts. The State concedes that this provision precluded Wilson from being convicted of both the dealing in stolen property charge and the grand theft charge. As we noted in Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), section 812.025 precludes dual convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property only when those charges relate to “one scheme or course of conduct” and thus does not entirely foreclose the possibility of prosecution for…
-
Williams v. State, 66 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…, on appeal this court has consistently reversed only the lesser offense and, if necessary, remanded the case for resen-tencing without consideration of the lesser offense. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In Hall v. State, 826 So. 2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002), which involved a similar dual conviction albeit in the context of a plea, the supreme court held that the defendant could be c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 404 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Cleaves v. State, 450 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)