PETER REPETTI, 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.
The court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property for the same course of conduct under section 812.025, Florida Statutes.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, grand theft, and two counts of dealing in stolen property. The grand theft charge involved jewelry, and the deali…
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 Double Jeopardy (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
Appellant, Peter Repetti, appeals his convictions for burglary, grand theft, and two counts of dealing in stolen property and the judgments and sentences entered on the charges of burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find no reversible error in connection with the convictions for burglary and the two counts of dealing in stolen property. We find, however, that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to return guilty verdicts on both count III (grand theft) and count IV (dealing in stolen property) of the information filed against appellant.
Count III charged appellant with grand theft of Kathleen Gianferrara’s jewelry. Count IV charged him with dealing in the stolen jewelry. Although section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1981), permits a single information, under proper circumstances, to charge in separate counts both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, the statute only allows the jury to return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts. We, therefore, uphold appellant’s conviction for dealing in stolen property under count IV of the information and reverse the conviction for grand theft under count III. Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Since appellant’s conviction for grand theft was included in the scoresheet used in determining his sentence under the guidelines, we must reverse and remand for resentencing on the three remaining convictions.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.S.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lennear v. State, 424 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Repetti v. State, 456 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), G.M. v. State, 410 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As explained in Ridley, because the dealing offense is a felony of the se…
-
Griffin v. State, 519 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ose from the same course of conduct. If it is true that both charges involved the same scheme or course of conduct, then defendant is correct that he can be convicted of only one of the two charges. See § 812.025, Fla.Stat. (1985); Repetti v. State, 456 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Since we cannot conclusively determine from the record whether defendant’s contention is correct, on remand the trial court should make that determination and, if appropriate, vacate one of the two convictions. Defendant further…
-
Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…on for both petit theft and dealing in stolen property where both charges appear in the same information, involve the same property and involve only one scheme or course of conduct. W.J. v. State, 485 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Repetti v. State, 456 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Duncan was charged with petit theft in violation of section 812.014(2)(b) and with dealing in stolen property in violation of section 812.019(1). While both charges properly ap…
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
- Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Jollie v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)