BARRY BEAUDRY, 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.
Barry Beaudry was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of $10,000 or more for stealing a car and its contents in a single taking. The appellate court reversed the second conviction, holding that the simultaneous taking of a car and its contents constitutes a single criminal act that cannot support dual convictions under double jeopardy principles.
The court reversed the second grand theft conviction, holding that the simultaneous taking of a car and its contents in one act constitutes a single criminal transaction that cannot support dual convictions under double jeopardy principles. The case is controlled by Sirmons v. State rather than Hayes v. State because there is no geographic or temporal separation between the takings.
[1] A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and grand theft of the same property when the offenses are merely degree variants of the core offense of theft.
[2] Separate convictions for armed robbery and grand theft of a motor vehicle are permissible when there is geographic and temporal separation in the taking of separate prope…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“these offenses are merely degree variants of the core offense of theft”
From Sirmons v. State, establishing that robbery and grand theft of the same property cannot support dual convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeaudry stole a car that contained computer equipment. He was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle (as a lesser included offense of carjacking)…
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 Carjacking cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The appellant, Barry Beaudry, stole a car containing computer equipment and was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle (as a lesser included offense of carjacking) and grand theft of $10,000.00 or more. On appeal he asserts double jeopardy on the basis that there was only one criminal act of simultaneous taking, which included the car and its contents. Beaudry relies upon Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1994), wherein it was held that a defendant could not be convicted of robbery and grand theft of the same property, a car he stole at knife point. The Florida Supreme Court held that “these offenses are merely degree variants of the core offense of theft.”
The state relies on the recent opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Hayes v. State, 803 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2001) wherein the court upheld separate convictions of both armed robbery and grand theft of a motor vehicle when the defendant stole various items from inside the victim’s residence, including car keys, then proceeded outside the victim’s residence and stole the victim’s vehicle utilizing those keys. Because of the “geographic and temporal separation in the taking of separate property,” the court upheld convictions for both armed robbery (inside the residence) and grand theft of the motor vehicle (outside the residence), determining that the dual convictions did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
The instant case is controlled by Sir-mons rather than Hayes. Here, there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking. See also Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla.1983).
The more recent case of Cruller v. State, 808 So. 2d 201 (Fla.2002) is inapplicable to the instant case because it involved a conviction for carjacking. In Cruller the court determined that the Florida Legislature intended to authorize separate punishments for carjacking and robbery, when the indictment for robbery lists property other than the motor vehicle. Had Beau-dry been convicted of carjacking and grand theft of property other than the motor vehicle, both convictions would stand.
We reverse the second grand theft conviction and remand for resentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHARP, W. and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…from obtaining convictions on both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents when “there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.” Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1994); Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1992). Beaudry was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft for computer equipment that was in the vehicle at the time…
-
Mixson v. State, 857 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1992); Oliver v. State, 842 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Beaudry v. State, the defendant stole a car containing computer equipment and was convicted of grand theft motor vehicle and grand theft of $10,000 or more. 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The defendant challenged the convictions on double jeopardy grounds arguing that under Sirmons he could only be convicted of one criminal act. See id. The Fifth District agreed, finding that “there is one act of taking (of t…
-
Ford v. State, 849 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…is required. Because appellant pled in open court to the charges against him, there is nothing to suggest that he waived his right to raise this double jeopardy violation. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla.1994). In Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the defendant stole a car containing computer equipment and was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of $10,000 or more. The Fifth District held that double jeopardy precluded convictions for both grand th…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1994)
- Hayes v. State, 803 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2001)
- Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983)
- Cruller v. State, 808 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2002)