CHRISTY OCHOA, 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.
Christy Ochoa appealed her convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property, along with drug possession offenses. The court held that she could not be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property arising from a single scheme or course of conduct under Florida law, and reversed the grand theft conviction while affirming her other convictions.
A person cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. Section 812.025, Florida Statutes requires that when a defendant is charged with both offenses, the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both. Florida's drug possession statutes are not facially unconstitutional.
[1] A person cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when both offenses arise from a single course of conduct.
[2] A trial court cannot adjudicate a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, even pursuant to a ple…
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 person cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct”
Establishes the core holding that conviction on both counts is prohibited when they arise from a single scheme or course of conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOchoa pleaded no contest to grand theft, dealing in stolen property, and three drug possession offenses. The charges for grand theft and dealing in st…
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.
Christy Jo Ochoa appeals from her judgments and sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property, imposed after an open plea of no contest to these charges and others, including three drug possession offenses. She raises two issues: (1) that she was improperly convicted of and sentenced for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when those offenses both arose from a single course of conduct; and (2) that her possession convictions should be vacated because applicable sections of chapter 893, Florida Statutes, the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (2010), are facially unconstitutional. Ms. Ochoa’s first issue has merit; the second has none. The Florida Supreme Court rejected Ms. Ochoa’s theory of unconstitutionality in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), and this court is bound by that decision.
However, as to her first issue, Ms. Ochoa correctly argues that a person cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing that a defendant may, “under proper circumstances,” be charged with “theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct ..., but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts”); Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002) (holding that section 812.025 also prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty — pursuant to a plea — of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct); Roman v. State, 73 So.3d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that the defendant’s convictions and sentences for both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with a single scheme or course of conduct were proscribed by section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2010), not by the prohibition against double jeopardy). The State has appropriately conceded error.
Accordingly, we reverse Ms. Ochoa’s conviction and sentence for grand theft in circuit court case no. 2010-CF-4168 and remand for the trial court to vacate them. Ms. Ochoa’s remaining convictions and sentences imposed in various Polk County cases on October 23, 2012, are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012)
- Hall v. State, 826 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2002)
- Roman v. State, 73 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)