GEOFFREY THOMAS WILLIAMS, 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 exploitation of an elderly person and third degree grand theft based on the same taking of property violate double jeopardy principles.
Appellant was charged with and pled nolo contendere to exploitation of an elderly person and third degree grand theft. Both convictions were based on …
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 Waiver Of Right To Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The appellant, Geoffrey Thomas Williams, was charged with and pled nolo contendere to one count of exploitation of an elderly person and one count of third degree grand theft. He was adjudicated guilty of each count and given five years probation for each, to run consecutively.
On appeal Williams contends that the two judgments of conviction constitute double jeopardy; that it was an abuse of discretion by the trial court to 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. 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 couples. He also contends this error is fundamental, therefore his failure to raise the issue below does not bar its consideration here. See Vasquez v. State, 778 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
In response to the double jeopardy contention, the state basically raises the same arguments that were rejected by the Fourth District opinion in Thomason. We agree with Thomason, however, and find that the two crimes charged involved one act of taking the same property, and the difference in value of the property in the two statutes does not create different elements for purposes of double jeopardy. Thomason at 1190. The grand theft conviction must be reversed.
We find Williams’ remaining issues are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the exploitation conviction and sentence and reverse the grand theft conviction and vacate the sentence therefor. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
PALMER and ORFINGER, R. B., 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)…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 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, [*743] 823 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In Rich, the Second District wrote: We have reviewed the exploitation statute, section 825.108, Florida Statutes (1999), and the staff analysis of the bill which enacted the statute. See Fla. H.R. Comm, on Aging & Human Servs.,…
-
Rich v. State, 823 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…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, 823 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the Fifth District considered this same issue and agreed that dual convictions for grand theft and exploitation of the elderly violate double jeopardy. The State acknowledges the decision in Thomason but contends that Thomason w…
-
Smith v. State, 873 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…lying the opinion of an opposing expert witness. See § 90.705, Fla. Stat. (2000). The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari in case no. 3D01-631 which was initially granted but, on rehearing, the petition was denied without opinion. Smith v. State, 823 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Ramirez, J. dissenting). On remand, the trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the disputed documents and ruled that some items, such as [*587] letters from defense counsel to the expert witnesses were work product and…
Authorities Cited
- Elliott Vasquez v. State, 778 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Thomason v. State, 790 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)