JAMES MCINNIS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for separate grand thefts of a motor vehicle and merchandise therein, distinguishing the motor vehicle from a purse as a container, but remanded for restitution hearing on ability to pay.
Separate convictions for grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of merchandise stolen from that vehicle are proper because a motor vehicle has multiple functions unlike a purse which serves only as a container.
[1] Separate convictions are proper for theft of a motor vehicle and theft of merchandise contained within that vehicle because a motor vehicle serves multiple functions unli…
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“a motor vehicle has a variety of functions”
Court distinguishing motor vehicle from purse to justify separate convictions for theft of vehicle and contents
Appellant was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of thousands of dollars worth of clothing that was in the vehicle at the tim…
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentence with the exception that we remand with directions that the provision for restitution be stricken, or, alternatively, that an evidentiary hearing be conducted to determine the ability of appellant to pay restitution, followed by findings and a conclusion based thereon. Denmark v. State, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We find no reversible error and specifically reject appellant’s contention that he was improperly convicted for the separate offenses of grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the merchandise in the motor vehicle at the time it was stolen. In this case the merchandise was thousands of dollars worth of clothing. See State v. Getz, 435 So. 2d 789 (Fla.1983) (separate convictions proper for theft of firearm and theft of other personal property taken in single burglary). We disagree with appellant’s contention that a motor vehicle is the equivalent of the purse involved in Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1992), wherein it was held that the theft of a purse could only be charged as a single crime, even though the purse contained a firearm in addition to other property. While a purse serves the single basic function of a container, a motor vehicle has a variety of functions. Based upon this distinction, and the holding in Getz, we affirm the separate convictions and sentences.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD J., concur. LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur only to point out that the alternative that we proscribe should be exercised by the trial judge at his discretion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Getz, 435 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1983)
- Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1992)
- Smith v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & DGP Invs., Inc., 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)