ROY DWAYNE THOMASON, 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.
The court held that convictions for third degree grand theft and exploitation of an elderly person, based on the same act of taking money, violate double jeopardy.
Appellant was convicted of third degree grand theft and exploitation of an elderly person for obtaining money from a couple without intending to perfo…
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 Exploitation Of The Elderly cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
After pleading no contest, appellant was convicted of third degree grand theft, defined in section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) and exploitation of an elderly person, defined in section 825.103(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997). The convictions were based on the same facts, which were that he had obtained an amount of money less than $20,000 from a couple, in exchange for his agreement to perform home repairs, with no intent of performing the services and with the intent of permanently depriving them of the money. He argues that the two convictions violate double jeopardy because, although exploiting an elderly person contains one element (that the victim is an elderly person) that grand theft does not contain, grand theft contains no elements that are not included in the exploitation offense.
The state argues that there is a distinction because third degree exploitation involves any property valued less than $20,000 while third degree grand theft involves any property valued from $300 to $20,000. We disagree. Where the two crimes charged involved one act of taking the same property, the difference in value of the property in the two statutes does not create different elements for purposes of double jeopardy. Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1992)(holding that the single act of snatching a purse which contained both money and a firearm, which were of different value, could not be the basis of separate convictions of grand theft of the money and grand theft of the firearm).
We therefore reverse for the trial court to vacate the conviction for grand theft. We find the other issues raised by the appellant to be without merit. Reversed.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mollie Everett v. State, 831 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ick. The State presented no evidence inconsistent with this claim. Our resolution of this case is buttressed by the trial court’s judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge, which was the basis of the exploitation charge. In Thomason v. State, 790 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court held that dual convictions for exploitation of the elderly and grand theft violated double jeopardy where, as here, the crimes charged involved one act of taking the same property. Accord Rich v. State, 823 So. 2d 208…
-
Rich v. State, 823 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…of the elderly violate principles of double jeopardy and requests that we reverse the conviction for grand theft. We agree and grant relief. When the trial court sentenced Mr. Rich, it did not have the benefit of the decision in Thomason v. State, 790 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), in which the Fourth District held that convictions for both grand theft and exploitation of the elderly violate double jeopardy when both [*209] convictions are based on one act of taking the same property.1 In Williams v. State…
-
Williams v. State, 823 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…adjudicate him guilty since he had no prior offenses; and, lastly, that the record fails to show that his waiver of right to trial was knowing and intelligent. In respect to the double jeopardy argument Williams relies on Thomason v. [*146] State, 790 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) wherein the Fourth District held that convictions for both third degree exploitation and third degree grand theft constituted double jeopardy where both convictions were based on the taking of the same money from the victimized c…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1992)