CHARLES DIXSON, 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.
Charles Dixson appealed his convictions for burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property in two consolidated cases. The court affirmed his conviction for dealing in stolen property in one case but reversed his convictions for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in the other case, finding that Florida law prohibited dual convictions for these offenses arising from the same scheme or course of conduct.
The court affirmed the conviction for dealing in stolen property in case 96-650 as the evidence was sufficient. However, the court reversed the convictions for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in case 96-245, holding that Florida Statute section 812.025 prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both offenses where they arise from one scheme or course of conduct.
[1] A defendant cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when the offenses arise from a single scheme or course of conduct.
[2] A conviction for dealing in stolen property may be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995), prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the two offenses arise from one scheme or course of conduct.”
Establishes the statutory prohibition that was violated by the trial court's dual convictions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDixson was charged in two separate circuit court cases with burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. Both cases were tried…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Charles Dixson, in this consolidated appeal challenges his judgments and sentences for burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
In circuit court case number 96-245 (appeal number 97-00640) the State charged Dixson with burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. In circuit court case number 96-650 (appeal number 97-00642) the State charged Dixson with burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. Both cases were tried on the same day in a nonjury trial before the same trial judge. Circuit court case number 96-245 was tried first and the court found Dixson guilty of all three counts. The court then proceeded with circuit court case number 96-650. The court found Dix-son guilty of only the dealing in stolen property count in that ease. The court sentenced Dixson. He filed a notice of appeal in each case and the cases were consolidated on appeal.
In circuit court case number 96-650, where Dixson was found guilty of only dealing in stolen property, Dixson contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment and sentence in that case.
In circuit court ease number 96-245 where Dixson was found guilty of burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property, Dixson contends it was error to find him guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995), prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the two offenses arise from one scheme or course of conduct. See Burrell v. State, 601 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The record indicates that the grand theft and the dealing in stolen property convictions arose from one scheme or course of conduct. It was thus error for the trial court to fail to apply the statutory prohibition in circuit court case number 96-245. See Burrell, 601 So. 2d at 630.
Accordingly, we reverse the sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property in circuit court ease number 96-245 and remand for resentencing. On remand the trial court is directed to enter a dismissal of either the grand theft conviction or the dealing in stolen property conviction, and to resentence Dixson.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. •
PARKER, C.J., and ALTENBERND and GREEN, JJ., concur.