KENNIS LEE SCHUMMER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed Schummer's conviction for dealing in stolen property but vacated the conviction for petit theft because section 812.025 prohibits conviction on both charges, and remanded for resentencing based on a corrected scoresheet that improperly included after-committed offenses.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft under section 812.025, Florida Statutes, and the trial court must impose a guidelines sentence based on a corrected scoresheet that excludes after-committed offenses.
[1] When a defendant is convicted of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft, the conviction for petit theft must be vacated because section 812.025, Florida Statutes…
[2] After-committed offenses may not be included in the scoresheet calculation for the instant crimes, and a guidelines sentence must be imposed based on a corrected scoreshe…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchummer was convicted by jury of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft. The trial judge imposed a downward-departure sentence using a score…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the appeal of Kennis Lee Schummer (Schummer), and the cross-appeal of the State. The jury found Schummer guilty of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft, despite that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1991), permits a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both. We affirm the conviction for dealing in stolen property, but vacate the conviction for petit theft, and remand for correction of sentence to reflect that the petit theft conviction is vacated. Day v. State, 531 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Alexander v. State, 470 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.1985).
The trial judge imposed a downward-departure sentence, without giving written reasons for the departure, based on a scoresheet which included points for offenses committed after the instant offenses. We remand for correction of the scoresheet; after-committed offenses may not be scored on the scoresheet for the instant crimes. Stephens v. State, 559 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), approved, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991). A guidelines sentence shall be imposed based upon the corrected scoresheet, as written reasons were not provided for Sehummer’s downward departure sentence. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990).
We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BOOTH, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cliff Parnell v. State, 661 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…no objection to erroneous instructions). We therefore vacate appellant’s convictions for grand theft in counts I through III, and remand for correction of sentence to reflect that the grand theft convictions have been vacated, see Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In all other respects, we affirm the convictions and sentences. BOOTH, JOANOS and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Golden v. State, 688 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…scheme or course of conduct. We affirm the conviction for dealing in stolen property, but vacate the conviction for grand theft, and remand for correction of the sentence to reflect that the grand theft conviction is vacated. See Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Parnell v. State, 661 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gray v. State, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. ALLEN and MINER, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Pease, 669 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…fendant for a term less than the time suggested in the sentencing guidelines, it must provide written reasons contemporaneously with the sentence. Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990); Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); State v. Howell, 572 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). If a trial court gives its reasons in its oral pronouncement and later commits them to written form, it commits reversible error. State v. Colbert, 660 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1995).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Almertis Stephens v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Waldon v. State, 559 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Alexander v. State, 470 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- DAY v. State, 531 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)