ANDRES BERMUDEZ, 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.
Defendant's dual convictions for robbery and grand theft arising from a single taking of $5,000 violated double jeopardy; the grand theft conviction was vacated while the robbery conviction was affirmed.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and grand theft for the same taking of property from a single victim.
[1] A defendant may not be convicted of both robbery and grand theft for the same taking of property, and the appropriate remedy for such a double jeopardy violation is to va…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBermudez and an accomplice deceived a victim into believing they were taking him to view a motorcycle for sale, then forced him to surrender $5,000 an…
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 Cumulative Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
Andres Bermudez and his accomplice hatched a scheme whereby they led the victim to believe that they were taking him to a storage unit to buy a motorcycle being housed there. On the way to the storage unit, Bermudez and the accomplice forced the victim to hand over the $5,000 purchase price and fled. Bermudez was convicted of both robbery and grand theft for his role in taking the money from the victim. He argues on appeal that the dual convictions violate double jeopardy as both offenses arose out of the same criminal episode and were part of one continuous act.
The State concedes that Defendant’s convictions for both robbery and grand theft based upon the single taking of $5,000 from one victim violate double jeopardy principles. See Simmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1994) (holding that a defendant could not be convicted of robbery and grand theft of the same property). Here, the State agrees that the conviction for the lesser offense, grand theft, should be vacated. See Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding the appropriate remedy for a double jeopardy violation is to vacate the conviction for the lesser offense). Accordingly, we affirm the robbery conviction, but vacate the conviction for grand theft and remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1994)
- Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)