WESLY DUMERVIL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Wesly Dumervil was convicted of burglary of a structure and third-degree grand theft following his arrest at a restaurant where appliances were being removed. The appellate court affirmed the burglary conviction but reversed the grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of the property value and remanded for resentencing due to improper sentencing methodology.
The court held that while the hearsay testimony may have been inadmissible, any error was harmless given undisputed evidence of burglary. The conviction for third-degree grand theft was reversed due to legally insufficient evidence establishing the property value at $300 or more, and the grand theft conviction was reduced to petit theft. The general sentence was reversed as improper for multiple convictions, requiring resentencing within statutory guidelines.
[1] Testimony regarding a police dispatch call reporting a crime in progress is inadmissible hearsay, but any error in its admission is harmless if the occurrence of the crim…
[2] A conviction for grand theft requires legally sufficient evidence to establish the value of the stolen property at $300.00 or more.
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 intelligence“Even if we were to assume that the defendant's argument was correct, in view of the fact that it is undisputed that a burglary actually occurred, any error in the introduction of that portion of the officer's testimony was harmless at most.”
Establishes that hearsay error regarding the dispatch call was harmless because burglary was undisputed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was arrested at a restaurant after police responded to a dispatch call. An officer arrived within two minutes and observed the defendant…
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 Third Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wesly Dumervil, the defendant, was charged with burglary of a structure and third-degree grand theft. At the defendant’s trial, the arresting officer testified that he had responded to a call that a possible burglary was in progress at a restaurant. The officer arrived at the restaurant within two minutes after receiving the dispatch. He saw the defendant and another person at the rear of the restaurant placing what appeared to be appliances into a box. The rear metal door of the restaurant had been pried open, and the box was approximately five to eight feet from the door.
In this appeal, the defendant argues first that the trial court erred in allowing, over defense objection, the testimony of the arresting officer that the police had received a call that there was a burglary in progress. The defendant claims that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Even if we were to assume that the defendant’s argument was correct, in view of the fact that it is undisputed that a burglary actually occurred, any error in the introduction of that portion of the officer’s testimony was harmless at most. See State v. DiGuilo, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in adjudicating the defendant guilty of third-degree grand theft, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the value of the stolen property at $300.00 or more. We agree. See J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the conviction for grand theft must be reduced to petit theft.
Finally, the defendant argues, and the State correctly agrees, that the trial court erred in imposing a general sentence on the burglary count and grand theft count, which exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for each of these counts. It is improper to impose a general sentence for multiple convictions. The general sentence must be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for resentencing within the statutory guidelines. See Lewis v. State, 567 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See also Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977) (a “sentence must be imposed for each offense”).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ned. Jackson, 413 So. 2d at 114; Samet v. State, 284 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed with instructions to enter a judgment for petit theft and to resentence defendant accordingly. Dumervil v. State, 603 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). REVERSED and REMANDED. W. SHARP, and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla.Stat. (1989). . Piffner admitted that they sold the television and the microwave at a local convenience store, but he was not asked how muc…
-
Bloodsaw v. State, 994 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…of value is legally insufficient to support the conviction for third-degree grand theft. Negron, 306 So. 2d at 108; S.A.S. v. State, 970 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Mansfield, 954 So. 2d at 76-77; Pickett, 839 So. 2d at 861-62; Dumervil v. State, 603 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Beasley v. State, 305 So. 2d 285, 286-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). We must therefore reverse the conviction for grand theft and re…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)
- Grover Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Walker v. Reecy Tindall, 567 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Lewis v. State, 567 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)