DOUGLAS ROHAUS, 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.
A defendant cannot be sentenced to a term of punishment that runs concurrently with a sentence imposed for a dismissed count, as no such sentence exists.
Appellant, a forfeiture officer, was convicted of official misconduct and theft charges. At sentencing, the trial court sentenced him on petit theft c…
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 Official Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant Douglas Rohaus appeals his convictions and sentences on four counts of official misconduct, seven counts of grand theft, and ten counts of petit theft. Rohaus raises four points on appeal. We find merit only in the final issue which addresses a sentencing irregularity. We accordingly affirm his convictions, but reverse his sentences and remand to the trial court to correct a sentencing error. Appellant was a forfeiture officer with the Hallandale, Florida, police department. As a result of an internal audit, appellant was charged by amended information with thirteen (13) counts of official misconduct, seven (7) counts of grand theft, and ten (10) counts of petit theft. At the conclusion of the state’s case, Rohaus moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court granted on nine of the thirteen counts of official misconduct including count I. Thereafter, appellant was convicted by a jury of the remaining counts.
At sentencing the trial court sentenced Rohaus on each of the petit theft counts to a term of county jail time to run concurrent with that imposed in count I; however, count I had been previously dismissed by the court pursuant to the judgment of acquittal.
It is axiomatic that one cannot be sentenced to a term of punishment that runs concurrently with the sentence imposed for a dismissed count because no such sentence exists. See generally Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1994).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.
STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whipple v. Dep't OF Corr., 892 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…s language of Whipple’s Dade sentence was mere sur-plusage and' a nullity as a matter of law. That is because a sentence that has been fully served leaves nothing for another sentence to be attached as concurrent or coterminous. See Rohaus v. State, 667 So. 2d 858, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“It is axiomatic that one cannot be sentenced to a term of punishment that runs concurrent with the sentence imposed for a dismissed count because no such sentence exists.”); State v. Franklin, 175 N.J. 456, 815 A. 2d [*558…
Authorities Cited
- Arjomand v. Alec J. Ross, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lenthius Daryl Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)