MORIN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Multiple theft convictions based on the same core offense committed in a single criminal episode violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and cannot stand.
[1] In theft cases, where offenses are merely degree variants of the core offense of theft, dual convictions based on the same core offense committed in a single criminal epi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[T]o permit the dividing into several larcenies of objects which are the subject of larceny . . . when stolen at the same time, from the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent, would be violative of the spirit of the Constitution . . . that a man should not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.”
Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1951), establishing the foundational single larceny rule.
Appellant was convicted by jury of burglary of a structure with a mask, grand theft from a retail merchant with a mask, and two counts of petit theft …
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged and found guilty by jury of burglary of structure with a mask, grand theft from a retail merchant with a mask, and two counts of petit theft with a mask.
We agree with Appellant and the State’s concession of error that his convictions on two counts of petit theft committed in the same transaction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States and Florida Constitutions. We otherwise affirm without further comment.
“[B]oth the United States and Florida Constitutions contain double jeopardy clauses that ‘prohibit subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense.’” State v. Maisonet-Maldonado, 308 So. 3d 63, 66 (Fla. 2000) (quoting State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 2015)).
“In cases of theft convictions, where the offenses are ‘merely degree variants of the core offense of theft ... dual convictions based on the same core offense cannot stand.’” Mixson v. State, 857 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (quoting Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153, 153-54 (Fla. 1994)).
“This is true ‘because each offense [is] simply an aggravated form of the underlying offense of theft, distinguished only by degree factors.’” Id.
“[T]o permit the dividing into several larcenies of objects which are the subject of larceny . . . when stolen at the same time, from the same place, and under the same circumstances with the same intent, would be violative of the spirit of the Constitution . . . that a man should not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1951); see also Tindal v. State, 145 So. 3d 915, 923–24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversing two petit theft counts where multiple items were taken during the same criminal episode, as part of the same acts, and the same proof elements were involved).
Here, Appellant smashed-and-grabbed two chainsaws and a weedeater from the merchant at the same place and time, and under the same circumstances. His conviction on three separate theft counts thus triggers Hearn’s single larceny rule. 55 So. 2d at 561.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand with directions for the trial to vacate the conviction and concurrent sentences for the two petit theft counts.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1951)
- State v. Maisonet-Maldonado, 308 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2020)
- Mixson v. State, 857 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)