ADAM SILVA MILLAN, 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.
Adam Silva Millan appeals his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property, challenging the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that Florida Statutes § 812.025 prohibits conviction on both theft and dealing in stolen property charges arising from the same conduct. The Second District affirmed the conviction while certifying conflict with a Fourth District decision on the enforceability of the statute's procedural requirements.
The court affirmed Millan's conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property. The court held that the procedural requirements in section 812.025 are unenforceable to the extent that they require a jury to select between offenses without legal criteria or factual basis, despite the jury determining the State proved both offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A defendant cannot be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the same scheme or course of conduct.
[2] Statutory provisions attempting to dictate jury verdict selection between two offenses, without legal criteria or factual basis, are unenforceable.
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“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”
Statement of the statutory language of § 812.025, establishing the purported prohibition on dual convictions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMillan was charged with one count each of petit theft and dealing in stolen property. At trial, the jury found Millan guilty of both charges. The tria…
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.
Adam Silva Millan challenges his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property. Millan originally was charged with one count each of petit theft and dealing in stolen property. At trial, the jury found Millan guilty of both charges, and at sentencing, the trial court dismissed the petit theft, adjudicated Millan guilty of dealing in stolen property, and sentenced Millan to eight months’ county jail. We affirm that conviction and sentence. However, we write to address Millan’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2011), he could not be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property.
Section 812.025 provides as follows:
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.
On appeal, Millan relies on Kiss v. State, 42 So.3d 810, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), in which the Fourth District held that “the plain meaning of section 812.025[] makes it clear that the state is not entitled to have the jury convict [a defendant] of both dealing in stolen property and grand theft.... To conclude otherwise would make the language of the statute meaningless.”
However, in Williams v. State, 66 So.3d 360, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), this court concluded
that the procedural requirements in section 812.025 are unenforceable to the extent that the statute (1) attempts to establish a procedure by which a jury does not return a factual finding announcing a verdict of guilty on each of the two separately charged offenses despite its determination that the State has proven the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) requires the jury to make this selection without any legal criteria or factual basis.
Accordingly, this court affirmed Williams’ conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property. Id. In doing so, we certified conflict with the Fourth District’s opinion in Kiss and certified three questions as being of great public importance. 66 So.3d at 361.
*963Pursuant to the reasoning in Williams, we affirm Millan’s conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property and again certify conflict with the Fourth District’s opinion in Kiss. Additionally, we again certify the three questions that this court in Williams certified as being of great public importance.
Affirmed, conflict certified, and questions certified.
CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kiss v. State, 42 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Williams v. State, 66 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)