CHARLES DUNCAN, 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 petit theft and dealing in stolen property when the charges arise from the same scheme or course of conduct.
[1] A single indictment or information may charge theft and dealing in stolen property in separate counts when connected by one scheme or course of conduct, but the trier of…
[2] A defendant cannot be convicted of both petit theft and dealing in stolen property when both charges arise from the same property and a single scheme or course of conduct…
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 intelligenceDuncan was charged with and convicted of both petit theft and dealing in stolen property. The charges stemmed from the same scheme or course of conduc…
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Duncan appeals from his conviction and sentence for petit theft in violation of section 812.014(2)(b) Florida Statutes (1985), and his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property in violation of section 812.019(1) Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property and reverse his conviction and sentence for petit theft.
Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that:
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.
Section 812.025 prohibits conviction 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 appeared in the same information, the trial court improperly permitted the jury to return guilty verdicts on both offenses. § 812.025, Fla.Stat. (1985).
Accordingly, we affirm Duncan’s conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property and reverse Duncan’s less serious conviction and sentence for petit theft. Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). A remand for resentencing is unnecessary as subtraction of one point for the petit theft conviction will not alter Duncan’s recommended guidelines sentence of four and one-half to five and one-half years.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., 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)…8 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); W.J. v. State, 485 So. 2d 22 (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 Rid…
-
Shearer v. State, 582 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ohibits conviction for both theft and dealing in stolen property “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” See Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, the two counts must involve the same property. Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Here, the dealing count charged appellant with selling a stolen camera, and the petit theft count involved a suitcase and clothing as well as the camera. Since the two crimes involved different properties, section 812.025 does…
-
Blount v. State, 641 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…property, the trial court's oral ‘‘merger” requires no action by this court. We note, however, that this merger left written judgments of conviction on both offenses. This procedure does not comply with the applicable case law. See Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- W.J. v. State, 485 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Repetti v. State, 456 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)