CARL EUGENE HAYS A/K/A CARL EUGENE HAYES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 grand theft and filing a false insurance claim arising from the same act violate double jeopardy principles.
Carl Hays was convicted of grand theft, filing a false insurance claim, and dealing in stolen property. The State conceded that the grand theft and fa…
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Carl Hays appeals his judgments and sentences for grand theft, filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim, and dealing in stolen property. We vacate his conviction and sentence for filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm the remaining convictions and sentences without discussion of the other points on appeal and cross-appeal.
The State properly concedes that Hays’ convictions for both grand theft, pursuant to section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), and filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim, pursuant to section 817.234(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), violate double jeopardy principles. See La-Roche v. State, 761 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Watson v. State, 655 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In Watson, the First District pointed out that “[t]he legislature did not intend for a single act of criminal fraud involving the core offense of theft to be prosecuted as separate offenses under both a specific fraud statute and the grand theft statute.” Watson, 655 So. 2d at 1251. Here, Hays’ convictions for filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim, and grand theft of the proceeds of that claim violate double jeopardy principles.
Therefore, we reverse Hays’ conviction and sentence for filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim and remand for modification of the judgment. We affirm his convictions and sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kist v. State, 900 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ssue of whether his convictions for both grand theft and insurance fraud in counts three and four, counts five and six, counts ten and eleven, counts twelve and thirteen, and counts seventeen and eighteen violate double jeopardy. In Hays v. State, 844 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court held that convictions for both grand theft and insurance fraud for the same transaction violate double jeopardy. Appellate counsel could not have known about Hays because it was decided two years after Kist’s direct ap…
-
Kist v. State, 949 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ding in Kist v. State, 900 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), John E. Kist seeks a new appeal of his convictions for grand theft and insurance fraud for the same transaction because the convictions violate double jeopardy protections. See Hays v. State, 844 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The State rightfully concedes the error. We reject all other grounds raised by Kist. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and sentences on counts 3, 5, 10, 12, and 17. In all other regards, we affirm. Affirmed in part; and r…
Authorities Cited
- Watson v. State, 655 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Wynn v. State, 761 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)