DANIEL ARROYO
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.
Daniel Arroyo was convicted of multiple counts of burglary and grand theft. The court reversed his conviction for grand theft of a firearm while affirming his other convictions, finding that the firearm conviction violated double jeopardy principles when combined with his separate grand theft conviction for the motor vehicle.
Arroyo's conviction for grand theft of a firearm must be vacated because it violates double jeopardy principles. Under Florida law, when there is one act of taking with no geographic or temporal separation between the taking of a vehicle and the taking of its contents, the State cannot obtain separate convictions for both grand theft of the motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents.
[1] A conviction for grand theft of a firearm must be reversed when it arises from the same act of taking as a conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle, absent geographi…
[2] A violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal.
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 intelligenceArroyo was convicted of burglary and grand theft charges involving a truck and a firearm. At trial, the victim testified that the center console of th…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Arroyo challenges his judgment and sentences for several counts of burglary and grand theft.1 Arroyo argues, and the State appropriately concedes, that his conviction for grand theft of a firearm should be reversed based on double jeopardy in light of his separate conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle.2 State, 597 So. 2d 798, 799 (Fla. 1992) (“A separate crime occurs only when there are separate distinct acts of seizing the property of another.”); Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“The State is precluded by double jeopardy principles from obtaining convictions on both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents when ‘there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.’” (quoting Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))). Accordingly, Arroyo’s conviction for grand theft of a firearm must be vacated.3 STARGEL, NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur. 1 This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. 2 Although this issue was not raised below, a violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal. Rubio v. State, 233 So. 3d 482, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1992)
- Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Moises Rubio v. State, 233 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)