ARTHUR THOMPSON, 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.
Arthur Thompson was convicted of burglary, grand theft of a firearm, grand theft in the third degree, and criminal mischief. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed one of two grand theft convictions, holding that the State failed to demonstrate the required separation of time, place, and circumstances between the theft of a firearm and other property taken during the same burglary, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The court reversed one of the two grand theft convictions, holding that convicting Thompson for both theft of a firearm and theft of personal property from the same burglary violates double jeopardy because both charges arise from sub-parts of the same statute and the State failed to establish the required separation of time, place, or circumstances.
[1] A defendant's dual convictions for grand theft violate double jeopardy when both convictions arise from a single burglary and are based on different sub-parts of the same…
[2] To sustain separate theft convictions arising from a single incident, the State must demonstrate a separation of time, place, and circumstances between the taking of diff…
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“We agree that it is a violation of double jeopardy to convict for both theft of a firearm and theft of personal property where both charges arise from a single burglary during which numerous items were taken because the convictions derive from two sub-parts of the same statute.”
Establishes the core holding that dual theft convictions from a single burglary violate double jeopardy under the applicable statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson was charged with burglary and multiple theft offenses based on fingerprint evidence found at the scene. During the burglary, Thompson alleged…
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 Grand Theft Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
[*90] FULMER, Judge.
Arthur Thompson appeals his convictions for burglary, grand theft of a firearm, grand theft in the third degree ($300— $5000), and criminal mischief. We reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate one of the two grand theft convictions because the State did not demonstrate separation of time, place, and circumstances between the taking of the firearm and the taking of other property during the burglary.
The State’s case against Thompson was based on fingerprint evidence found at the scene. Thompson first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial when testimony from an employee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed that Thompson’s fingerprints were on file with the AFIS, an automated fingerprint identification system. We reject this argument because the transcript indicates that, after some discussion, Thompson’s attorney withdrew his objection and motion. Therefore, this issue was not preserved.
Thompson next argues that the dual convictions for grand theft violated double jeopardy where one was based on the taking of a firearm during the burglary, in violation of section 812.014(2)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2000), and the other was based on the taking of “various personal items” valued between $300 and $5000, in violation of section 812.014(2)(c)(l). We agree that it is a violation of double jeopardy to convict for both theft of a firearm and theft of personal property where both charges arise from a single burglary during which numerous items were taken because the convictions derive from two sub-parts of the same statute. See Mixson v. State, 857 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
The State argues that the convictions should stand because they are based on offenses separated by time, place, or circumstances. We reject this contention because there was insufficient evidence of the events that occurred during the burglary to lead one to conclude that the taking of the firearm was separated by time, place, or circumstances from the taking of the other items. See Mixson, 857 So. 2d at 365 (reversing one of two theft convictions where “the State is unable to demonstrate the requisite separation of time, place, and circumstances between the taking of the truck and the taking of the tools”).
Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to vacate one of the theft convictions. Thompson received five years’ concurrent for each of the theft charges; thus, either count may be reversed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelso v. State, 961 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2007)…ich the Fourth District certified conflict with the Fifth District’s decisions in Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and Scarola v. State, 889 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 888 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The instant matter presents a purely legal question with regard to whether it is permissible to have convictions for multiple theft offenses…
-
Kelso v. State, 898 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…nsidered the suppression issue and find it to be without merit. We accordingly affirm and certify direct conflict with Wilson and two other decisions which followed Wilson; Scarola v. State, 889 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and Thompson v. State, 888 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Mixson v. State, 857 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)