BOBBY GENE GORDON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2009-12-23
No. 4D08-204
MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.
24 So. 3d 727 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a defendant cannot be adjudicated guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when the charges arise from the same course of conduct.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court errs by adjudicating a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property when the charges arise from the same course of conduct.

[2] Florida law prohibits a trier of fact from returning a guilty verdict on both theft and dealing in stolen property when they stem from a single scheme or course of conduc…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Gordon was charged with dealing in stolen property and grand theft after he removed and pawned a valuable watch from his employer’s home. He pled nolo…

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.


Opinion of the Court
POLEN, J.

*728POLEN, J.

Appellant, Bobby Gene Gordon, appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating him guilty of grand theft and dealing in stolen property and sentencing him to concurrent terms of forty months imprisonment. Gordon was charged with dealing in stolen property and grand theft after he removed and pawned a valuable watch from his employer’s home. Gordon pled nolo con-tendere to the charges. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court violated a Florida statute by adjudicating Gordon guilty of both dealing in stolen property and grand theft. The state concedes error. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate one of the charges and resentence Gordon.

Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2006), provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.

Thus, section 812.025 prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the two charges arise from the same course of conduct. Toson v. State, 864 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that the statute also prohibited dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft where a defendant pled nolo contendere to both charges. Id. at 271.

In Toson, this court reversed the defendant’s dual convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the charges arose from the defendant’s theft and sale of the same items of property. 864 So.2d at 555. Similarly, in the present case, Gordon’s charges and convictions arise from his theft and sale of one watch. Thus, the trial court erred in convicting Gordon of both charges.

Reversed and remanded.

MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Anucinski v. State, 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014)
    …So. 3d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court in Hall v. State, 826 So. 2d 268 (Fla.2002), as well as with the decisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Gordon v. State, 24 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), L.O.J. v. State, 974 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Pomaski v. State, 989 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Pursuant to section 812.025, Florida…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw