STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MONA VANDERBILT SMITH, 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 dismissal of the grand theft count was proper because the elements of grand theft are subsumed by the elements of obtaining property in return for worthless checks, thus preventing double prosecution.
Mona Smith passed worthless checks to Sears for merchandise exceeding $300. She was charged with both grand theft and obtaining property in return for…
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 Elements Of An Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
This matter was originally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was an appeal from an order granting a motion rather than from an order specifically dismissing a count of the information. See Rule 9.140(c)(1)(A), Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, on the authority of State v. Saufley, 574 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), we grant rehearing and withdraw our original opinion, determine that we have jurisdiction and proceed on the merits.
On October 23,1988,1 Mona Smith passed worthless checks to Sears in exchange for merchandise having a value in excess of $300. She was charged with both grand theft and obtaining property in return for worthless checks. The trial court dismissed the grand theft count because it “could not be proved without establishing the same facts as would be necessary in proving the elements of the remaining counts of the information.” We agree and affirm.
The state contends that since each offense contains different elements the dismissal was improper. It is true that the worthless check counts require proof that a check was involved in the offense. But this same element can satisfy the more general element in theft: “obtains ... the property of another with the intent to ... appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto.” The theft element is not different in the sense that it distinguishes theft from obtaining property in return for a worthless check; it is merely more inclusive. Obtaining property in return for a worthless check will always constitute theft because the more general theft element subsumes the more specific worthless check element. We agree that double jeopardy prevents double prosecution for this same offense.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur. . Section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1988) and not Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987) controls.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perrin v. State, 599 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…tegory two, lesser-included offense of grand theft. Accordingly, we hold that section 775.021(4)(b)(3) does not prohibit punishment for Perrin’s grand theft and worthless check offenses. We have not overlooked Perrin’s reliance upon State v. Smith, 578 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), a case which we find to be similar but distinguishable. Smith passed worthless checks to Sears in exchange for merchandise and like Perrin, she was charged with one count of grand theft and multiple counts of obtaining property…
-
State v. E.L., 595 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ces in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby revoked. SECTION 5: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. . An order granting a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is appealable. State v. Smith, 578 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).…
-
State v. Nuckolls, 606 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…unts, we find that the defendants’ arguments directed at the statute of limitations are without merit. REVERSED and REMANDED. W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . Orders granting motions to dismiss in criminal cases are appealable. State v. Smith, 578 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); State v. Saufley, 574 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). . § 319.35(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 831.01, Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 319.33, Fla.Stat. (1989). . § 117.09(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). . Article IV, § 4(c), Florida Constitut…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Saufley, 574 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)