ANTONIO J. REYES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed a defendant's theft convictions but remanded the case to correct a scrivener's error in the sentencing order. The court found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding multiple counts of grand theft or double jeopardy.
The court held that the defendant could be charged with multiple counts of grand theft based on separate takings and that no double jeopardy violation occurred. The court also held that the sentencing order must be corrected to match the oral pronouncement.
[1] A written sentencing order must be corrected to conform with the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence when a scrivener's error exists.
[2] Multiple counts of grand theft may be charged when property is stolen at different times or places or as a result of a series of acts separated in time, place, or circums…
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“As the State concedes, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a 71.1 month sentence.”
Establishes the need to correct the sentencing order due to a scrivener's error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAntonio Reyes was convicted by a jury of twenty-nine counts of grand theft. The trial court denied his post-verdict motion for acquittal and imposed a…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Reyes appeals his theft convictions and sentence. A jury found Reyes guilty of twenty nine counts of grand theft. The trial court denied Reyes’ post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal. It rejected the defense’s requests for mitigation and announced a sentence of 71.1 months. The trial court’s written order, however, provided for a 71.7 month sentence. As the State concedes, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a 71.1 month sentence. See Newson v. State, 867 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (remanding with instructions that a scrivener’s error in the written sentence be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement).
An exhaustive review of the record demonstrates no merit in the remaining points raised. There was no error in charging Reyes with multiple counts of grand theft. See Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1951) (observing that when property is stolen at different times or places or as a result of a series of acts, separated in time, place, or circumstance, each taking is a separate and distinct offense); State v. Diaz, 814 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(finding each invoice to be a separate taking and, therefore, only the final invoice was within the statute of limitations); Vizcon v. State, 771 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that money laundering statute did not prohibit separate convictions for negotiation of each of twenty-nine separate checks written over the course of a year even though defendant claimed that the offense was singular and continuous).
There was no double jeopardy violation. See Donovan v. State, 572 So. 2d 522, 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see also Sewall v. State, 783 So. 2d 1171, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
The State introduced competent evidence which was clearly inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events, see State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989), and the balance of Reyes’s arguments are likewise unpersuasive.
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…eding in Case No. 01-17905, it does not appear anywhere that Catalan was adjudicated a habitual felony offender. Where there is a difference between the court’s oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls. Reyes v. State, 888 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we direct that Catalan’s sentence in Case No. 01-17905 be corrected to delete his classification as a habitual felony offender in that case. The defendant need not be present. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour…
-
Griffith v. State, 909 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…t reflects that the defendant was sentenced as a PRR for count I only. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence in part, and remand with directions to strike the PRR designation from count II. See Reyes v. State, 888 So. 2d 95, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Reddick v. State, 802 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The defendant need not be present. We affirm the remainder of the order denying relief. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1951)
- Donovan v. State, 572 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Sewall v. State, 783 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Newson v. State, 867 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Thompson v. State, 867 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Vizcon v. State, 771 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. Diaz, 814 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)